Wa/1948/2023 Of Prestige Marketing Division v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 22 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA,1945 WA NO. 1948 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2023 IN WP(C) 14030/2022 OFHIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: PRESTIGE MARKETING DIVISIONIX/28A ID AREA, A.M.ROAD, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.C.A.SUBAIR, PIN - 683112 BY ADVS.ANIL D. NAIRTELMA RAJUAADITYA NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 6920182THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, ALUVA, PIN - 683101SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPHTHIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14030/2022 is the appellant before us,aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.9.2023 of the learned Single Judge inthe writ petition. 2.Inasmuch as the facts relevant for disposing this appeal havealready been stated in the impugned judgment, we do not deem itnecessary to reiterate the facts here. Briefly stated, the issue that arosebefore the learned Single Judge was whether during the pendency of anappeal before the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act (forshort 'the Act'), the CIT could exercise its power of revision underSection 263 of the Act on an issue that had been decided to its prejudicein the assessment order, which was the subject matter of appeal beforethe Appellate Authority. Although it was the contention of the writpetitioner before the learned Single Judge that, since it had preferred an appeal against the assessment order and the appeal was pending beforethe First Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority under the Actcould not exercise its power of revision in relation to the same issue, thelearned Single Judge found, based on the submissions of the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department, that the issue that wasthe subject matter of the revision proceedings was not the same as theone that was decided against the assessee in the assessment order whichwas the subject matter of the appeal. He, therefore, found that theRevenue was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of theAct to correct the wrong rate of tax that had been applied and whichworked to the benefit of the assessee in the assessment order that wasthe subject matter of the appeal. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings of thelearned Single Judge, who has relied on various decisions of the SupremeCourt to come to his conclusion. We also find that, at any rate, the rightof the appellant to challenge the order proposed to be passed by theAssessing Officer pursuant to Ext.P5 revision order passed in accordancewith Section 263 of the Act has been reserved to the appellant. Theappellant therefore cannot be seen as prejudiced in any manner. For the W.A.No.1948/2023 -:4:- reasons stated above, the Writ Appeal fails, and it is accordinglydismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp