M/S.gay Silk Mills, Chennai-1 v. The Income Tax Officer, Businessward Vii(4), Chennai-6

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 05.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.1138 & 1139 of 2009 M/s.Gay Silk Mills, Chennai-1. ...Appellant/Respondent in both TCA's Vs The Income Tax Officer, BusinessWard VII(4), Chennai-6....Respondent/Appellant in both TCA's APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 18.5.2009 made respectively inITA.Nos.182 and 183/ Mds/2008 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment years1994-95 and 1995-96 arising against the consolidated order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai in ITA Nos.149and 157/00-01 and renumbered as ITA No. 15 and 16/06-07, dated16.11.2007 against the Assessment order for the Year 1994-95 and1995-96 by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(2) Mumbai, dated30.3.2000. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for theappellant – assessee and Ms.S.Premalatha, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent – Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act), are directedagainst the common order dated 18.5.2009 made respectively inITA.Nos.182 and 183/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench (for short, the Tribunal)for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. 4. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel for theparties, we find that there is absolutely no question law, muchless, a substantial question of law arising for consideration.The issue was as to whether the Assessing Officer recordedreasons for being satisfied that the assessment had to bereopened. The assessee took a stand before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai [for short, the CIT(A)] thatthere was no recording of reasons in the separate order sheet.The CIT(A), on going through the files, while accepting thatthere were reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in favourof the assessee itself, but in a separate letter. 5. The CIT(A) took up a few words in the said letter wherethe Assessing Officer used the terms 'appears' and 'appeared'and concluded that there was no formation of opinion that theassessment had to be reopened. The Tribunal called for theentire records and found that the letter dated 05.1.2000 of theAssessing Officer formed part of the original records and in thecombined order sheet for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, there were reasons recorded, after which, the approval wassought for from the Commissioner for issuing notice underSection 148 of the Act. As rightly held by the Tribunal, theapproach of the CIT(A) was unwarranted and in our consideredview, it was perverse. Thus, we find that there is no ground tointerfere with the common impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the above tax case appeals are dismissed asno substantial question of law arises for consideration. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai.3.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 18(2), Mumbai.+2cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.66844+1cc to Mr.S.Premalatha, Advocate Sr.66650TCA.Nos.1138 & 1139of 2009 rsk[co]srg 16/09/2019