COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM vs. M/S.KARINOS WEAVE PRIVATE LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITA/139/2011HC KeralaKLHC01026487201126 March 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court deprecated the conduct of the assessee in not informing the Tribunal about the High Court's previous judgment and undertaking, which led to the impugned orders. The Court noted that the Department was also indifferent for not bringing the judgment to the Tribunal's notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Assessing Officer is directed to revise the orders of assessment issued pursuant to the judgment in ITA No. 99/2009 (holding company's case). The Court held that since the basis of the Tribunal's decision on gross profit determination was affected by its judgment, the Assessing Officer must reconsider the matter afresh. The principle established is that undertakings given to the High Court must be honored before lower appellate authorities, and failure to do so can lead to the setting aside of subsequent orders and a remand for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the Revenue concern the assessment years not explicitly stated but arising from orders dated January 18, 2011, and January 15, 2007. The dispute involves M/s. Karinos Weave Private Limited (assessee) and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam (Revenue). The core issue is the treatment of closing stock of the subsidiary company, M/s. Karinos Weave Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs. 82.47 lakhs, which was not shown as its opening stock but was declared as opening stock by its holding company, M/s. William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd. The High Court had previously disposed of an appeal (ITA No. 99/2011) against the holding company based on an undertaking by the assessee that the ground pertaining to the opening stock addition of the subsidiary would not be contested. However, the subsidiary company, M/s. Karinos Weave Pvt. Ltd., did not inform the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of this undertaking, leading to the impugned ITAT orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee (M/s. Karinos Weave Private Limited) is precluded from pressing a ground before the Tribunal concerning the assessment of closing stock, contrary to an undertaking given to the High Court in a related appeal concerning its holding company, M/s. William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd., thereby violating the terms on which the High Court disposed of that appeal (ITA No. 99/2011). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court in the present appeals. However, the conduct described suggests the assessee proceeded to argue the matter before the ITAT on merits despite the undertaking given in the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's primary objection is that the assessee pressed a ground before the Tribunal contrary to the undertaking given to the High Court. The Revenue argues that this conduct led to the impugned orders and disabled the Department from contesting the Tribunal's order in the holding company's case, which was dismissed as a consequence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA.39/COCH/2009
CO 20/COCH/2007

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/6TH CHAITHRA 1934 ITA.No. 139 of 2011 ( ) ----------------------- (AGAINST ORDER IN ITA.39/COCH/2009 DATED 18/01/2011 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH) APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: --------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: ------------------------ M/S.KARINOS WEAVE PRIVATE LIMITED P.B.NO.4642, SOUTH VADAI CANAL ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688001. BY ADV. SMT.ANITA RAMACHANDRAN ADV.SRI.K.ANAND THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-03- 2012, ALONG WITH ITA. 146/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA NO.139/2011 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 147 DATED 30/12/2008. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF CIT(A)'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.11/ALPA/CIT (A)-IV/07-08 DATED 20/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF CIT(A)'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.13/APY/CIT (A)-IV/07-08 DATED 15/01/2007 OF M/S.WILLIAM GOODACRE & SONS INDIA PVT. LTD. ANNEXURE-D : COPY OF ITAT'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.319 & CO 20/COCH/2007 DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-E : COPY OF ITAT'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO.ITA NO.39 & 95/COCH/2009 DATED 18/01/2011. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.A. Nos.139 & 146 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of March, 2012. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The connected appeals are filed by the Revenue raising a major objection in the assessee pressing a ground before the Tribunal contrary to the undertaking given in this Court while disposing of the assessment appeal, namely ITA No.99/2011, against the holding company. The common dispute arose in the assessment of the holding company, namely M/s.William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd. and its subsidiary company namely, M/s.Karinos Weave Pvt. Ltd. with regard to assessment of closing stock of the subsidiary company amounting to Rs.82.47 lakhs, which was not shown as opening stock of that company. However, the holding company declared an opening stock of the same amount in the account of the said Company. In other words, closing stock of the subsidiary company is shown as opening stock of the holding company, which is a

ITA Nos.139 & 146/2011 -2- strange principle of accounting by both the companies. We felt that the value of the stock should be considered for assessment only at the hands of one company. When the appeal of the holding company was heard, learned Senior counsel appearing for the assessee after taking instructions from the subsidiary company submitted that in the Income Tax Appeal that was pending against the assessment of closing stock of the subsidiary company, they will not press that ground thereby accepting the closing stock of that company to be treated as opening stock for assessment. We accordingly disposed of I.T.A. No.99/2009 filed against the holding Company, namely M/s.William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd. as follows:- “Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that ground pertaining to the opening stock addition of the subsidiary company will not be contested by the assessee in that case. We therefore, dismiss the appeal on specific condition that the assessee will not press the addition pertaining to the opening stock in the hands of the subsidiary company namely, M/s.Karinos Weave Private Ltd.”

ITA Nos.139 & 146/2011 -3- However, the subsidiary company was given freedom to dispute the determination of gross profit pertaining to the stock transfer reflected in the opening stock stated above. In spite of the above judgment delivered based on undertaking given by the assessee in this Court the assessee did not inform the Tribunal about the above judgment and the matter was argued on merit, which led to impugned orders issued by the Tribunal. The consequence of this conduct of the assessee is that the Department was disabled from contesting the Tribunal's order at the hands of the holding company and the Department's appeal was dismissed. In the normal course, we should have imposed heavy cost on the assessee for this attitude, which we deprecate. However, the Department is equally indifferent in the matter because they also did not bring our judgment to the notice of the Tribunal. We therefore, do not think the assessee alone should be penalised for this conduct. We therefore allow the appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and restore

ITA Nos.139 & 146/2011 -4- the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration while revising the orders of assessment issued pursuant to the judgment in ITA No.99/2009 in the case of M/s.William Goodacre and Sons (India) Ltd. Since the very basis of the Tribunal's decision on determination of gross profit also goes as a result of our judgment, it is for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter afresh and if the appellant has grievance, the appellant is free to challenge the same in another round of appeal. These Income Tax Appeals are allowed as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →