SHRI. ALEX C.JOSEPH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/244/2013HC KeralaKLHC01026129201329 October 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE,HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that no question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. It found that for the assessment year 1992-93, a notice under Section 147 was issued on March 26, 1997, and served on the taxpayer on April 8, 1997. According to Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, no notice under Section 148 (which is the relevant section for issuing notice for escaped assessment) shall be issued if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal emphasized that the statute only requires the notice to be issued within the prescribed time and does not mandate its service on the taxpayer within that period. This interpretation is supported by the judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Beefathumma (1991 Vol.188 ITR 649). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as the matter was covered by statutory provisions and precedent.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Shri Alex C. Joseph, is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in M.A.No.38/Coch/2010, which arose from I.T.A.No.707/Coch/2005. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1992-93. This application was filed pursuant to directions from the High Court in I.T.A.92 of 2008, where the appellant was permitted to move the Tribunal on the issue of limitation concerning an escaped assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT considered the factual situation and the issuance of a notice under Section 147. The assessment order was dated March 31, 2000, and an appellate order was passed on February 25, 2005. The ITAT's order under challenge is dated December 7, 2012.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1992-93 was within the period of limitation as prescribed by Section 149 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee's contention, as understood from the High Court's previous order (ITA 92/2008), was to allow the appellant to move the Tribunal on the question of limitation concerning the escaped assessment under Section 147. The Revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in this judgment, but the Tribunal's decision implies that the Revenue likely argued for the validity of the notice. The Tribunal relied on Section 149 of the Income Tax Act and a High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Beefathumma (1991 Vol.188 ITR 649).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 707/COCH/2005
MA 38/COCH/2010

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/7TH KARTHIKA, 1935 ITA.No. 244 of 2013 () ----------------------- MA.38/C0CH/2010 OUT OF ITA 707/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 07-12-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: --------------------------- SHRI. ALEX C.JOSEPH CHEKKATTU HOUSE, THADIYOOR P.O THIRUVALLA, PAN ACJPJ4244J BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD.1, THIRUVALLA BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29- 10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA 244/13 --------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------ ANNEXUREP-A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.31/3/2000 THE YEAR 1992-93 ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ANNEXUREP-B TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DT.25/2/2005 FOR THE YEAR 1992-93 ANNEXUREP-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA 707/COCH/2005 DT.26/6/2006 ANNEXUREP-D TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IN ITA 92/2008 ANNEXUREP-E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MA 38/COCH/2010 DT.7/12/2012 ANNEXUREP-F TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN ITA 707/COCH/2005 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL //True copy// PS to Judge. uj. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. --------------------------------------------- I.T.A.No.244 OF 2013 --------------------------------------------- Dated 29th October, 2013

JUDGMENT Shaffique,J

Appellant challenges the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in M.A.No.38/Coch/2010 arising from I.T.A.No.707/Coch/2005. The matter relates to the assessment year 1992-93. 2. This application came to be filed as per the directions issued by this Court in I.T.A.92 of 2008. While rejecting the appeal filed as I.T.A.92 of 2008, this Court permitted the appellant to move the Tribunal on the question of limitation making the escaped assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

3.

The Tribunal, after having regard to the factual situation, found that in respect of the assessment year 1992-93, notice was issued on 26/3/1997 which was ITA 244/13 2 served on taxpayer on 8/4/1997. Under Section 149 of Income Tax Act, it is clearly mentioned that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Notice contemplated under Section 148 need only be issued. The Statute does not indicate that it should be served on taxpayer. This matter is also covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Beefathumma (1991 Vol.188 ITR 649).

4.

Hence we are of the view that no question of law arises for consideration in the above appeal, as the matter is already covered by the aforesaid decision and statutory provisions. Appeal is hence dismissed. (MANJULA CHELLUR) CHIEF JUSTICE. (A.M.SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. uj.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →