Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala

69 STC 62High Court1988#2134 most cited

What is Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala authority for?

An assessment order is time-barred if the department fails to prove that the order was dispatched within the prescribed period of limitation. The burden lies on the department to make the dispatch date available from records to establish timely issuance.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala · 69 STC 62 · assessment order limitation · time barred order · dispatch date proof · burden of proof revenue · Section 143(3) assessment · prescribed period for order · issuance of order validity · department fails to prove dispatch

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 153

Issues it is cited on

impermissible avoidance arrangementsection 153a(b)section 245hsection 245hasection 263(2)warrant of authorisationsection 142(2c)section 245csection 153(2a)section 144basection 153(c)section 90a

Judgments citing Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala

Serene Country Owners welfare Association vs. Income Tax Officer

ITTA/155/2018HC Telangana20 Jan 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…bove preposition:- i) CIT vs Chetan Gupta (2015) 94 CCH 13 (Del); ii) CIT Vs. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand And Sons in ITA No. 522 of 2007 dated 13.03.2008; iii) AGIT Vs. Kappumalai Estate, 234 ITR 187 (Ker); iv) Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 (Ker); v) Cf. K. Mohd. Osman Saheb & Co. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1971) 27 STC 303 (AP); and vi) Andhra Pradesh Vs. M. Ramakishitah & Co. (1994) 93 STC 406 (SC) 18. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the counsel submitted that the assessee has accepted an amount of Rs.55 lakh from companies named in the reasons and amount of Rs.2 c…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. It is important to note here that this is a se…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. It is important to note here that this is a se…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…therefore the assessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this regard the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: a. Shanti Lai Godawat& Others vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ 135 (Tnb.Jodhpur). b. Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala (1987) 69 STC 62 (Ker) 23 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 c. Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT Citation not given. d. M/s. Nidan, Berhampur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 109/CTK-2018 (Trib. Cuttack) e. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd.88 ITR 192 (SC) 7.2 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. It is important to note here that this is a se…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…ted as under: “An identical issue was before this Court in ITA No.832/2008 (D.D. 14.10.2014 in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex vs DCIT. This court following the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood works vs State of Kerala (1988) 69 STC 62 has held that in the absence of dispatch date made available to the Court from the records, to prove that the order is issued within the prescribed period, order passed by AO is barred by limitation. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.” 13. To the same effect are the decisions of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, which are…

M/S. Khaitan Winding Wire Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2546/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147

…ssioner had passed his order within the lime prescribed, though it was communicated later. The question as to when an order can be slated to have been made was the subject of consider 01 ion by this court in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62 ; [1987] 1 KLT 804 in which this court stated, after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court culminating in B.J Shelat v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69) : "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party effected has the means of knowing it.…

M/S. Sun Steel Industries (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2007-08

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 256(2)Section 263

…mmissioner had passed his order within the time prescribed, though it was communicated later. The question as to when an order can be stated to have been made was the subject of consideration by this court in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62; [1987] 1 KLT 804 in which this court stated, after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court culminating in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69)” ‘The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. I…

ACIT, Circle-50(1), Kolkata vs. Sunil Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 1194/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-50(1), Kolkata Vs. Sunil Agarwal Da-12, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Actpa 4135 D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Cross Objection No.10/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sunil Agarwal Vs. Acit, Circle-50(1), Kolkata . Da-12, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Actpa 4135 D (Cross-Objector) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C. J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross-Objection For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 15, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed In Case No.112/Cit(A)-15/15-16/Dcit,Cc- 4(3)/R&T/Kol U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri C. J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 143(3)

…s/decisions. 1. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakrishtaiah & Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. CIT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust – 212 ITR 456 (Ker) I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Agarwal 3. Government of Wood Works vs. State of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. CTO & Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT, Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & ors. Vs. ACIT- (2009) 726 TTJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT, Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. M/s. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand & Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. ITO - ITA No. 2110/Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3557/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…assessment order was passed after the statutory time limit provided under the Act. It has further held that the question as to when an order can be stated to have been made was the subject of consideration in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62; [1987] 1 KLT 804 in which the court stated, after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court culminating in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69) : "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. I…

Pankaj Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3556/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu, Acountant Member

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…assessment order was passed after the statutory time limit provided under the Act. It has further held that the question as to when an order can be stated to have been made was the subject of consideration in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62; [1987] 1 KLT 804 in which the court stated, after relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court culminating in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1978 SC 1109, as follows (at page 69) : "The order of any authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. I…

Pushp Steels & Mining (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6094/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) &
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153(1)Section 68

…he limitation issue that the term used in sec 153B is making an order of assessment before the prescribed date and in view of the judgments of the Kerala High Court in the cases of CAGIT vs Kappumalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker) and another judgment reported in 69 STC 62 and other decisions of 327 STC 303 (AP) and 93 STC 406 (SC), the order to make the assessment is complete and effective once the same goes beyond the control of authority concerned. It was also submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessing officer in any case should have taken care to pass the order before the limitation date in the mann…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh S. Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 17(1) V. Shri Haresh S Jhaveri Room No. 135, 1St Floor Ps-6/7, Rotunda Building, 2Nd Floor, B.S. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Dalal Street, Mumbai – 400 023 Pan: Aabpj 8053 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. P. Daniel Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.C.I.T Circle – 17(1) v. Shri Haresh S Jhaveri Room No. 135, 1st Floor PS-6/7, Rotunda Building, 2nd Floor, B.S. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Dalal Street, Mumbai – 400 023 PAN: AABPJ 8053 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dr. P. Daniel Department by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2018 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the orde…

M/S Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1743/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri H.Chakraborty, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…and custody of the CIT. He pointed that the date of dispatch ought to be reckoned for the purpose of saving limitation. He further relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Works Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1988 69 STC 62 (Ker) wherein it was held that order was made, ITA No.1743/Kol/2010-B-JM 4 M/s.Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. signed and kept in the files, was not effective and complete until it was issued to the party. 7. In reply, the Ld. DR argued that in section 263 of the Act the requirement is only making of the order within the specified time by giving a fi…