Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax [289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/28TH BHADRA, 1938 ITA.No. 1289 of 2009 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 29/2006 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 09-05-2008 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT:-------------- M/S.FRESH BAKES, ERNAKULAM R BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) R BY ADV. SMT.NISHA JOHN R BY ADV. SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN R BY ADV. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.7.2005 FOR THE BLOCKPERIOD FROM 1.4.1988 TO 10.3.1999. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.2.2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE C: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.5.2008 OF THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO. 29/COCH/2004. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015. R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 24/15 DATED 31.12.2005. R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.8.2016 SUBMITTED TO THEPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. =========================== I.T.A. No. 1289 of 2009=========================== Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the Department andthe learned Senior counsel for the assessee. The issue thatarises for decision relates to compatibility of proceedings underSection 158BD and 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On thefacts of the case, it is not in dispute that the officer, whoconcluded the proceedings under Section 158BC of the IncomeTax Act is different from the officer, who initiated the proceedingsunder Section 158BD of that Act. Therefore, it is sine quo non inlaw that the officer, who initiated the proceedings under Section158BD ought to have recorded satisfaction as to the existence ofgrounds to invoke Section 158BD of the Income Tax Act. This isin conformity with the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court inMaheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [289 ITA 1289/2009 (2007) ITR 341(SC)]. We do not find any ground to interferewith the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal isdismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE ks Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge