The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. M/S.pricol Ltd., Coimbatore
High Court
09 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. M/S.pricol Ltd., Coimbatore
Date of order
09 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
1994-95
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore v. M/S.pricol Ltd., Coimbatore, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 09.3.2016
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN
Tax Case Appeal No.1273 of 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Coimbatore....Appellant VsM/s.PRICOL Ltd., Coimbatore....Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.8.2006 made in I.T.A.No.3339/Mds/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 1994-95.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.SenthilkumarFor Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J
The above appeal is admitted on 8.10.2007 on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening under Section 147 is not in accordance with law, since reopening is made after four years from the
(2)
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,JANDN.KIRUBAKARAN,J
end of the assessment year, even though the years prescribed under Proviso to Section 147 have to be read with Section 149 where four years have been extended to 7 years and the income escapes to charge is more than Rs.50,000/-?"
RS
2. Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department/appellant and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
3. None of the three Authorities have recorded any finding that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. Once this finding of fact is clear, the reopening of assessment was incorrect. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is correct.
4. For reopening the assessment beyond the period of four years, but within seven years, the Department should show that there was a failure to disclose true and full information. Since it is not there, the reopening was bad.
5. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Internet : Yes
09.3.2016
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.
TCA.No.1273 of 2007
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.