The Commissioner of Income TAx - IV vs. Orient Longman Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940 ITA.No. 244 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO.18/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH DATED 29-03-2012 APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: M.S.RATHI M/S.LAKSHMI HOSPITAL, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682016. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA.No. 244 of 2012 2 JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. The Revenue has filed an appeal from the order of remand for the year 2002-2003. The assessee is represented by Sri.Anil D. Nair. The learned Counsel for the assessee would produce the judgment in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012 passed by another Division Bench of this Court dated 25.09.2017, in the assessees appeal. Therein the assessment years under consideration were 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. Here, the assessment year under consideration is 2002- 2003. There was a remand made in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012 keeping open all the issues. The above appeal is filed by the Revenue. Hence there should be a consideration first by the Tribunal. Hence we declined to answer the question of law. 2. In this context, we notice that the contention of the assessee, before the Tribunal was that the Revenue could not have filed an

ITA.No. 244 of 2012 3 appeal for reason of the litigation policy, which prohibited an appeal having tax limit below Rupees One lakh. However, the assessee was not at all heard before the Tribunal before the assessee's contentions on litigation policy were rejected was the specific ground taken in I.T.A. Nos.24 & 28 of 2012. The consideration also has to be first on the litigation policy. 3. On the litigation policy, we notice the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt.Vasantha Anirudhan [(2018) 401 ITR 279 (Ker)]. When the monetary limit is computed, the overall demand made by the Revenue in a group of appeals, where the question raised is common, has to be considered. Merely because in each of the appeals the limit is below that specified in the litigation policy, the individual appeals cannot be rejected. What has to be looked at is the

ITA.No. 244 of 2012 4 total demand in so far as the adjudication with respect to an issue. We hence remand the matter with the above observation. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON sp/21/01/19 JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge

ITA.No. 244 of 2012 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2006. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 29/11/2007. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/07/2011. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE-E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/03/2012 WITH A COPY. ANNEXURE-F1 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005. ANNEXURE-F2 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27/03/2000. ANNEXURE-F3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION NO.1985 DATED 29/06/2000.