Itta/441/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I v. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.441 OF 2011 DATED:12.12.2011 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-IVisakhapatnam … Appellant And Visakhapatnam Urban Development AuthorityUdyog Bhavan, Siripuram JunctionVisakhapatnam … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKURANDTHE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. NO.441 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt.29.8.2008 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, in I.T.A.Nos.218-220/Vizag/2008, relevant for the assessment years 2004-05 to2006-07. 2. The return on behalf of the Visakhapatnam Urban DevelopmentAuthority was signed by the Chief Accounts Officer of the authority. Thereturn was accepted by the assessing officer. The AdministrativeCommissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of his powers conferred bySection 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) came tothe conclusion that since the Chief Accounts Officer of the authority wasnot its Principal Officer, the acceptance of the return and theconsequent assessment order passed by the assessing officer wasprejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. There is nothing on the record to suggest how the assessmentorder was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal considered the meaning of theexpression ‘Principal Officer’ appearing under Section 2(35) of the Actand on a consideration thereof, it came to the conclusion that insofar asthe Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority is concerned, theChief Accounts Officer would be its Principal Officer and was thereforeentitled to file the return on behalf of the authority. 5. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 6. Dismissed. 12-12-2011bnr __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J