Ramachandran Nair, J v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 ITA.No. 8 of 2010() ------------------- ITA.536/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------- M/S.KUREETHADAM WINES, C/O.DIANA TOURIST HOME, PIRAVAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.8 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for therespondent. The assessee which is engaged in liquor business wasoriginally assessed under Section 44(AC) of the Income Tax Act.Later the Assessing Officer noticed that additional income tax was notlevied and, therefore, the assessment was rectified under Section 154 ofthe Act, against which assessee filed appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals),leading to cancellation of Section 154 order. The assessment wasthereafter revised under Section 147 based on decision of the SupremeCourt in UNION OF INDIA VS. SANYASI RAO & OTHERSreported in 219 ITR 330 and the income from liquor business was fixedat Rs.7,91,650/-. In between, on assessee's application, theCommissioner issued order under Section 264 directing the AssessingOfficer to give credit for TDS under Section 206 of the Act, which wasalso granted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed second round of appeal against the revised order issued by the AssessingOfficer contending that the income assessed from business is incorrect.However, C.I.T.(Appeals) found that the income fixed had alreadybecome final by virtue of earlier round of litigation and in the secondround, the question cannot be raised in an appeal filed against revisedorder issued by the Assessing Officer pursuant to order of the C.I.T.(Appeals) under Section 264 of the Act. The Tribunal rejectedassessee's second appeal on the ground that the C.I.T.(Appeals)'s orderagainst regular assessment had become final and in fact pursuant toC.I.T.(Appeal)'s order, the income from business was modified toRs.7,43,730/-. We do not find anything wrong with the order of theTribunal because the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal wasonly a revised order issued by the Assessing Officer based onrevisional order issued by the Commissioner under Section 264wherein the Commissioner had only directed to give credit for tax deducted at source. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and thesame is consequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms P.S.GOPINATHANJudge