Loading High Court cases…
301 orders · Page 2 of 7
The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) which was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the Supreme Court judgment was considered by the assessing officer was not decided by the High Court.
The High Court held that the ITAT's direction to grant approval was justified and that remitting the matter back to the Commissioner was not necessary. The Court reasoned that the Commissioner's denial was based on an extraneous factor (1% charitable activity) that was not germane to the issue of granting approval under Section 80G. The Court noted that the Revenue did not dispute the assessee's registration under Section 12AA, implying compliance with necessary pre-conditions. Since the ITAT had only set aside the Commissioner's order on an irrelevant ground, the High Court found no need for a fresh decision by the Commissioner. The substantial question of law was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal, implying the ITAT's order stood.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the stay application (Ext.P5) within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The Court further directed that any demand pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed on Ext.P5. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, but rather directed the authority to process the stay application.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal directed that the pending stay application (Ext.P8) be considered and disposed of after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. This decision was made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Crucially, the court ordered that any demand arising from the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until the stay application was decided. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay application.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no recovery steps would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order until the stay petition was disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should expeditiously consider stay petitions to prevent irreparable prejudice to assessees while their appeals are pending.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously. The Court further ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is disposed of. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the Section 80P deduction claim itself, nor does it make a finding on whether the disallowance was correct. The primary focus was on the procedural aspect of the pending appeal and the issuance of the demand notice. The issue of the correctness of the disallowance was implicitly left to be decided by the appellate authority.
The High Court held that the opportunity of personal hearing is explicit in Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was not disputed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order (Ext.P6) was passed. Consequently, the Court found that Ext.P6 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to pass fresh orders pursuant to Ext.P4 notice after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court held that the appellate order (Ext.P4) was passed without proper notice to the petitioner. The court agreed with the petitioner's submission that no notice was sent to the email ID provided in Form No. 35. The respondent's own statement and the produced chart confirmed that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID ('crgkitr@yahoo.in') instead of the one specified by the petitioner ('crgk1070@gmail.com'). Consequently, the appellate order was set aside for being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court directed the 4th respondent to consider the appeal afresh after issuing due notice to the petitioner at the correct email ID mentioned in Ext.P2. The appeal is to be disposed of within three months of issuing fresh notice. No coercive steps are to be taken pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is decided.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, acting under Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961, cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal is statutorily obliged to consider all appeals on their merits. Dismissal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is not legally sustainable. This principle applies even when an application for restoration is filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The High Court relied on its own precedent in Uzhuva Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others. Consequently, the High Court set aside the learned Single Judge's judgment and the ITAT's dismissal orders, directing the ITAT to restore the appeal on its file and pass orders on merits within six months.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within two months from the date of receiving the judgment. The Court further ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1) and the notice under Section 156 (Ext.P4) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty or the deduction claim, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.
The High Court held that the appellate order (Ext.P4) was indeed passed without proper notice to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that no notice was sent to the email ID provided by them in Form No. 35. The revenue's contention that notices were sent to the email ID provided in Form No. 35 was found to be factually incorrect, as the email ID used by the revenue ('crgkitr@yahoo.in') differed from the one provided by the petitioner ('crgk1070@gmail.com'). Consequently, the Ext.P4 appellate order was set aside. The Court directed the 4th respondent (NFAC) to reconsider the appeal (Ext.P2) after issuing due notice to the petitioner at the correct email ID specified in Ext.P2. The appeal is to be disposed of within three months of the fresh notice. No coercive steps are to be taken pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is decided.
The High Court held that the petitioner had not made out any case for exercising review jurisdiction. This was because the sole ground for the review petition was the information received under the RTI Act from the Nilambur Police Station, which stated that no Section 132A authorization was issued. However, the Income Tax Department produced a warrant of authorization under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act, duly acknowledged by the police on 08.06.2022. The Court found this evidence to be contradictory to the RTI information. Therefore, the Court concluded that the information provided to the petitioner was incorrect and dismissed the Review Petition. The ratio decidendi is that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised on the basis of demonstrably incorrect information, especially when contrary evidence is presented.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the Court further directed that the stay petition filed by the assessee should also be taken up for consideration expeditiously. The entire exercise of considering both the delay condonation and the stay petition is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that no recovery proceedings shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order and demand notice until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to the penalty order (Ext.P1) and the demand notice (Ext.P4) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty or the deduction claim, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.
The High Court allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the learned Single Judge's judgment. The Court found that the statutory provisions do empower the ITAT to condone the delay in question. The reasoning was based on the submission of the appellant's counsel that such a power exists. The High Court directed the ITAT to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application within two months of receiving the judgment. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the first appellate authority were to be kept in abeyance until the ITAT passed its order on the delay condonation application and communicated it to the appellant. The issue of whether the delay should ultimately be condoned was left to the ITAT to decide.
The High Court found that the ITAT, in its impugned order, failed to consider the issues raised by the Revenue on their merits, despite specific grounds of appeal being filed. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the ITAT. The matter has been remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh decision on merits concerning both the risk adjustment for exports and the commission on corporate guarantee. The ITAT is directed to pass a fresh order within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the parties. The questions of law raised in the appeals were not answered.
The High Court found that the ITAT did not address the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue. Therefore, the impugned order of the ITAT was set aside.
The High Court held that the petitioner had stated sufficient reasons in their application for condonation of delay. The Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken a technical view in dismissing the application and consequently the appeal. The Court observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal at the threshold on technical grounds. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) (Ext.P5) and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court also granted a stay on recovery steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until orders were passed on the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court directed the respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the stay petition filed by the petitioner (Ext.P3) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the subsequent communication (Ext.P5) until such time as the stay petition is considered and orders are passed. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court directed the second respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider the application for condonation of delay (Ext.P7) expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the NFAC is then to consider the stay petition (Ext.P6). The entire process, including the consideration of the delay condonation and the stay petition, is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) (Ext.P1) until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The appeal itself and the merits of the rectification order were not decided.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (Ext.P3) as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 3rd respondent is further directed to consider the stay petition (Ext.P4) expeditiously. This entire process is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P2) shall be deferred until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The principle established is that statutory appeals and stay applications should be considered promptly, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration to protect the assessee's rights.
The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P18) against the assessment order (Ext.P17) before the 4th respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Given that Ext.P18 is a statutory appeal, the court found it appropriate to direct the 4th respondent to consider the appeal in accordance with the law. The court ordered that the appeal be considered expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, to protect the assessee's interests during the pendency of the appeal, the court ordered that no recovery steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P17) until the appeal is disposed of. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pending the consideration of the stay petition, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery steps taken against the petitioner pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition and the need to prevent coercive recovery measures during this period. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies, including stay petitions, should be considered promptly to avoid prejudice to the assessee.
The High Court held that Section 148A(b) explicitly mandates providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Relying on its previous decision in Income Tax Officer v. Asamannoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2024(1) KLT 654], the Court reiterated that an effective opportunity of hearing requires consideration of the assessee's reply and permitting them to persuade the Income Tax Officer, potentially through a personal hearing. Since the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity for hearing, they were set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent on June 14, 2024, with relevant documents, and ordered the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the petitioner's submissions. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible. If the delay is condoned, the 3rd respondent is further directed to take up the stay application (Ext.P3) and pass an appropriate order expeditiously. The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of two months. Crucially, the Court ordered that there shall be no recovery proceedings pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order (Ext.P1) until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The principle is that statutory appeals and related interim relief applications should be considered promptly, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration.
The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the ex-parte assessment order, shall be deferred until the stay petition is considered. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, but focused on ensuring that the petitioner's right to seek a stay is addressed promptly and that recovery is put on hold in the interim.
The High Court allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition. The court held that the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the order passed on Ext.P9, which relates to a stay petition. This means the petitioner can pursue their challenge to the stay order in a different forum or through a fresh proceeding, without prejudice from the withdrawal of the current writ petition. The court did not decide on the merits of the underlying tax dispute or the validity of the stay order itself, as the petition was withdrawn.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The entire exercise of considering both the delay condonation and the stay petition is to be completed within a period of two months from the date of the order. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until the aforementioned exercise is completed. The principle established is that statutory appeals and related applications should be dealt with promptly, and recovery should be stayed pending such consideration to protect the assessee's rights.
The High Court of Kerala directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petitions (Exts. P8 to P10) expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts. P2 to P4) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petitions. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions. The principle established is that recovery actions should generally be stayed pending the disposal of stay petitions filed along with statutory appeals, to ensure that the appellate process is not rendered infructuous. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court of Kerala directed the third respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, to consider the petitioner's stay petitions (Exts.P8 to P10) expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts.P2 to P4) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petitions. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals themselves, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that all recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal or the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Joint Commissioner (Appeals)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the stay petitions (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and penalty order (Ext.P1(a)) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petitions. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment or penalty orders, nor did it decide the ultimate fate of the appeals.
The High Court directed the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of the statutory appeals (Exts.P3 to P3(e)) within a period of three months. The petitioner was directed to continue paying the installments as stipulated in Ext.P1 until the disposal of the appeals and subject to the outcome of those appeals. Furthermore, the court ordered that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner if the installments, as directed in Ext.P1, were paid until the disposal of the appeals. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the appeals themselves.
The High Court of Kerala directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P5 and P7) expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such time as orders are passed on the stay petitions, all recovery proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment orders (Exts.P2 and Ext.P3), shall be deferred. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this direction. The substantive merits of the appeals were not decided.
The High Court directed the Additional 5th respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre) to consider the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P15) expeditiously. If there was any delay in filing the appeal (Ext.P14), the petitioner was to be informed, and they were to file a condonation of delay application, which would also be considered expeditiously. If the delay was condoned, the stay petition would be heard expeditiously. If there was no delay, the stay petition would be considered expeditiously. The entire process was to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Until then, all recovery steps pursuant to the penalty order and notice were to be deferred. The principle is that statutory remedies should be pursued and decided with reasonable expedition, and recovery can be stayed pending such decision.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay (Ext.P6) expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the stay petition (Ext.P5) expeditiously. The entire process, including the consideration of the appeal and stay petition, must be completed within a period of two months. Until such time, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P3). The court did not decide on the merits of the appeal itself, only on the procedural steps for its consideration.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P5) expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred until the stay petition is disposed of. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather addressed the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - III, to consider the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the Court further directed that the stay petitions (Exts.P16 to P20) shall be considered expeditiously thereafter. The entire exercise is to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The contentions of the petitioner regarding rectification applications were left open. As an interim measure, recovery proceedings against the petitioner were stayed until the stay petitions are considered. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
The High Court of Kerala directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to dispose of the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered a stay of recovery proceedings against the petitioner until such time as the stay petition is disposed of. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, to consider the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the Court further directed that the stay petitions (Exts.P10 to P12) should also be considered expeditiously. The entire process, including the consideration of delay condonation and stay petitions, was to be completed within two months. The Court also stated that the petitioner's contention regarding rectification applications is left open. Until the stay petitions are considered, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
The High Court held that since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) should consider Ext.P3 (stay petition) expeditiously. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 (assessment order) shall be deferred until orders are passed on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a significant delay of 700 days. The Court held that a litigant who has not been vigilant about their statutory rights cannot seek equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to defer recovery of amounts due pursuant to an assessment order, especially when such a substantial delay is involved. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing recovery proceedings and concluded that the writ petition lacked valid substance. No specific decision was made on the merits of the appeal or stay petition before the ITAT.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of the application for condonation of delay expeditiously. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent is further directed to consider the stay application expeditiously. The entire exercise is to be completed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until such disposal, there will be a stay of recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order. The court acknowledged the existence of the statutory remedy of appeal as the primary recourse for the assessee.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the assessment order (Ext.P5) was liable to be set aside because it was passed following a Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court which was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Limited and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court also noted the petitioner's grievance regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside Ext.P5 and directed that the assessment for the assessment year 2018-19 be completed afresh. This fresh assessment is to be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the Supreme Court's judgment. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice was implicitly addressed by directing a fresh assessment with an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment dated May 21, 2024, decided that the writ petitions had become infructuous. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court found no further necessity to adjudicate on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court ordered that both writ petitions stand dismissed as infructuous. No decision was made on the substantive issues that might have been raised had the petitions proceeded on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petitions.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had not considered the assessee's claim for depreciation on spare parts on merits, citing the non-production of evidence as the reason. However, the Court found that evidence supporting the claim had indeed been filed before the Tribunal via an email (Annexure E) produced in the present appeals. Consequently, the Court concluded that the ends of justice would be met by remanding the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh consideration of the depreciation claim on merits, after taking into account the evidence produced by the appellant. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the case or answering the questions of law raised. The ITAT was directed to pass fresh orders within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment, and the appellant was directed to furnish a fresh set of documents within two weeks. Other issues considered by the ITAT, not impugned in these appeals, were treated as finally decided.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition based on the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. The Court directed the petitioner to file their return of income before 29.06.2024. If the petitioner files their return of income within the stipulated period, the assessing authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the eligibility of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) or the validity of the impugned orders on merits. The operative direction is for the petitioner to file the return and for the assessing authority to consider it.
The High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had not considered the assessee's claim for depreciation on spare parts on merits, citing the non-production of evidence as the reason. However, the Court found that evidence supporting the claim had indeed been filed before the ITAT via an email dated 02.12.2022, a copy of which was produced before the High Court. Therefore, to serve the ends of justice, the Court set aside the ITAT's order on the issue of depreciation for the assessment years in question. The matter was remanded back to the ITAT for a fresh consideration of the depreciation claim on merits, after taking into account the evidence produced by the assessee. The ITAT was directed to pass fresh orders within three months of receiving the judgment. The assessee was also directed to furnish a fresh set of documents to the ITAT within two weeks. The Court clarified that other issues decided by the ITAT and not impugned in these appeals were to be treated as finally decided.
The High Court held that the matter should be remanded back to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for a fresh consideration on merits. The Court found that the ITAT had not considered the assessee's claim for depreciation on spare parts on merits, citing the non-production of evidence as the reason. However, the Court noted that evidence supporting the claim had actually been filed before the Tribunal via an e-mail (Annexure E), which was produced before the High Court. Therefore, to serve the ends of justice, the High Court set aside the ITAT's common order on the issue of depreciation for the relevant assessment years. The ITAT is directed to pass fresh orders after considering the evidence produced by the assessee, within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The assessee is also directed to furnish a fresh set of documents related to Annexure E to the Tribunal within two weeks. The Court clarified that other issues decided by the ITAT, which are not impugned in these appeals, are to be treated as finally decided.