The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Kerala State Industrial … on 13 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA.No. 23 of 2002()


1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/02/2008

 O R D E R
                   C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                  T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
                  --------------------------------------------
                       I.T.A. No. 23 & 46 OF 2002
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 13th day of February, 2008

                                JUDGMENT

C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J.

Heard counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing

for the respondent. Appeals are against common order of the Tribunal

dismissing the departmental appeals for the years 1986-87 and 1987-

88. The respondent-assessee, a Government of Kerala undertaking,

was assessed granting relief under Section 80M of the I.T. Act.

Assessments originally issued were later modified stating that relief

granted under Section 80M is in excess of the eligible amount. The

orders rectifying the assessments produced in Court show that

rectification is carried out to limit the deduction under Section 80A(2)

of the I.T.Act. However, in the statement of facts, the appellant has

stated that the amount of unabsorbed deduction under Section 80 VVA

carry forward from 1985-86 was modified leading to reduction of the

amount for 1986-87 from Rs. 6,15,890/- to Rs. 2,36,072/-. While this

is stated as a ground for rectification in the appeals, the impugned order

of rectification produced in Court shows that rectification is carried out

to limit the claim under Section 80A(2) of the Act. The very same

2

ground is raised in the appeal filed for 1987-88 also. In view of the

conflicting grounds stated for rectification in the appeal and in the

order issued under Section 154 of the Act, we are not in a position to

decide the issue on merits. However, we make it clear that if the

previous years’ assessments were modifed leading to variation in

figures of carried forward benefits, then subsequent assessments can

be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. Similarly if over-all ceiling

limit under Section 80A(2) was not followed while granting relief in

the original assessment, then also the assessing officer is free to rectify

the assessment under Section 154 of the act. However, since facts are

not clear we set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and that of

the first appellate authority and remand the matter back to the assessing

officer for passing fresh orders after verifying the records and after

issuing detailed reasons for rectification and after hearing the

objections of the assessee.

Appeals are allowed as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

kk

3