Kerala High Court
Geosoft Technologies (Trivandrum) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 10 August, 2012
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/17TH JYAISHTA 1935
ITA.No. 20 of 2013 ()
----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 279/COCH/2011 DATED 10.08.2012 of
I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT:
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES (TRIVANDRUM) LTD.,
NO. 233/241, NILA, TECHNOPARK CAMPUS
KARYAVATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 581,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V.S.PRADEEP.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.D.BABU
SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
KUM.P.G.GAYATHRI
SRI.V.SURESH (TRIVANDRUM)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
---------------------------------------
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN 695 003.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE-1(1), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 003.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA 20/13
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE
AY 2006-07.
ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT.
ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE AY 2006-07.
ANNEXURE A3 : COPY OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE
SHEET - AY 2006-07.
ANNEXURE B : COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 141(1) OF THE IT ACT.
ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED
10.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C1 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.12.2008 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE D : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 07.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER S.263.
ANNEXURE E : COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DATED
15.06.2011.
ANNEXURE F : COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
DATED 26.04.2004.
ANNEXURE F1 : COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
DATED 16.04.2006.
ANNEXURE G : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2011 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT UNDER S.263.
ANNEXURE H : COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE
APPELLANT BEFORE THE ITAT.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T.Appeal No.20 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
For the assessment year 2006-07, the Commissioner of Income Tax invoked Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and issued Annexure G order holding that the manner in which deferred expenditure was quantified and claimed by the assessee is not uniform. The Commissioner was therefore of the view that the Assessing Officer had not called for and examined the issue in its entirety and this clear error has caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue in the form of excess allowance. Resultantly, the Commissioner set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to go into the manner in which the deferred expenditure is worked out and whether there has been any departure from the practice in the preceding year ITA 20/13 -2- and to decide the issue afresh. We do not see that the said order of the Commissioner contains any final decision adverse to the interest of the assessee. Obviously therefore, following that order of remit, the Assessing Officer had to consider the matter in terms of those directions. The assessee carried an appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioner's order. That has been dismissed as per the order impugned in this appeal, pointedly holding that it is obligatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to record reason for allowing or disallowing the claim of the assessee towards deferred expenditure. The Tribunal also held that since the assessment order did not contain any reason, it did not reflect the application of mind of the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Administrative Commissioner. The said decision of the Tribunal also does not contain any decision on the crucial issue of deferred expenditure and the quantification thereof. Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity ITA 20/13 -3- or other ground to visit the decision of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we are also told that following the Administrative Commissioner's order, the Assessing Officer had passed revised assessment orders and that was carried in an appeal, and by now, it is pending before the Tribunal. Obviously, there is nothing in the orders impugned in this appeal, that would stand in the way of the Tribunal giving elaborate consideration of that appeal on all grounds available to the appellant/assessee, in accordance with law. With that observation, this appeal is dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg