B.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

As per the facts in W.P.(C).No.18909/2020 on behalf of Sri.B.Mohanachandran Nair, Prasanthi Cashew Company which is engaged in the business of processing and export of cashew, filed return for the assessment year 2003-2004 claiming deduction of Rs.96,62,109/- under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the profit from export turnover. The Assessing Officer did not grant the deduction as sought but reworked the deduction at Rs.20,88,046/-. Against the aforementioned order, the petitioner therein filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was partially accepted but confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of two items. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 06.01.2012 accepted the contention of the petitioner and appeal has been partly allowed whereby the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for making fresh examination of the case and it is still pending.

In the other case W.P.(C).NO.18919/2020 by Smt.K.R.Ushasree, Sai Export Enterprises, for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 claimed deduction which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer but was reworked. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the first item was partly accepted and ultimately same order as in the other case was passed, i.e., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

Sri.Anil.D.Nair, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, submits that almost eight years have passed but the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not been adhered to in letter and spirit and the Assessing Officer is still seized of the matter. The Officers cannot sit over the matter for the final period as they are legitimately expected to pass an order within a reasonable period.

This Court had already admitted this writ petition on 15.09.2020. Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the Income Tax Department do not deny the aforementioned facts and pendency of the matter before the Assessing Officer in view of the remand order of the ITAT. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petitions by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment years referred to above in letter and spirit in view of the order of the ITAT dated 06.01.2012 within a time line. Since eight years have been consumed, let the above exercise be undertaken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in case the direction of this Court is not complied with by passing order in accordance with law, the Assessing Officer shall be burdened with cost of Rs.25,000/- each in both cases, to be personally recovered from his salary. These writ petitions are disposed of. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak