M/S.SAFA WOOD INDUSTRIES, MATTANNUR vs. THE COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/134/2000HC KeralaKLHC01015215200006 August 2007Author: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues raised in the present appeal were identical to those considered and decided in its previous judgment in K.V. Kader Haji (Decd.) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ([2004] 268 ITR 465). Consequently, the Court found that the issues required to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Court did not provide a separate finding or reasoning for each of the three specific questions of law raised by the assessee, but rather relied on the precedent. The operative direction was to decide the appeal accordingly, meaning in favour of the Revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Safa Wood Industries, represented by its Managing Partner K.P. Mohammed Salim, filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The appeal challenges the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, for assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97, dated March 12, 1999. The Revenue is the respondent. The assessee is aggrieved by the ITAT's decision upholding the assessment orders. The procedural history involves the ITAT's order which is now under challenge before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide three substantial questions of law raised by the assessee: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that an assessment order under Section 158BC was proper in the absence of an opportunity for the assessee to be heard. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that the assessment made complied with Sections 127 and 120(1) and other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ratifying the assessment order, which allegedly ignored the stocklist of timber prepared by the department at the time of search and did not allow a costwise deduction for damaged timber. The assessee raised these contentions. The Revenue, through its Standing Counsel, argued that the issues were covered by a previous decision of the High Court in K.V. Kader Haji (Decd.) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ([2004] 268 ITR 465).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 158BC,Section 127,Section 120(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2007 / 15TH SRAVANA 1929 ITA.No. 134 of 2000 --------------------- ( ITA.19/COCH/1996 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH ) APPELLANT/ASSESSEE : ---------------------------------- M/S. SAFA WOOD INDUSTRIES, MATTANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.P. MOHAMMED SALIM. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN ADV. SRI.MAHESH MADHAVAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 134 OF 2000 ................................................................................... Dated this the 6th August, 2007

J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: The assessee has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.(S&S)A.No. 19(Coch)/96 for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 dated 12.03.1999. 2. In the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for our consideration and decision; they are as under: “(1) Was the Tribunal correct in law and justified in finding that the order of assessment under section 158 BC is proper in the absence of an opportunity for the assessee of being heard in the matter? (2) Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in law in finding that the assessment made is proper being in compliance with S.127, S.120(1) and the other relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act? (3) Was the Appellate Tribunal justified , in the facts and circumstances of the case, in ratifying the validity and correctness of the assessment order which is passed ignoring the stocklist of timber prepared by the department at the time

INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 134 OF 2000 2 of search on the premises of the assessee and thereby not allowing a costwise deduction for the damaged timber?”

3.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, Shri George K. George would submit that the issues raised in this appeal is fully covered by the decision of this Court in K.V. Kader Haji (Decd.) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ([2004] 268 ITR 465).

4.

We have carefully perused the law declared by this court in the aforesaid decision. The issues raised in this appeal are identical with the issues raised and considered in the aforesaid decision. Therefore, the issues raised by the assessee requires to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue and it is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk

INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 134 OF 2000 3 H.L. DATTU, C.J.& K.T. SANKARAN, J.

....................................................... I.T.A.No. 134 OF 2000 .............................................. Dated this the 6th August,2007

J U D G M E N T

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →