Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai v. Shri.T.A.Krishnaswamy
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Following the same, the Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The assessee filed the return of income for theassessment year 1998-99 on 26.10.1998, admitting a total incomeof Rs.1,00,586/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on 11.3.2004. The assessment for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 were reopened under Section 147 and were completedon…
- Para 55. In the judgment dated 2.1.2006 in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF), to which one of us (K.RAVIRAJAPANDIAN,J.) is a party, held: "7. Of-course, the factual aspect stated bythe learned Junior Central GovernmentStanding Counsel that the Kartha of…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 27.11.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMANT.C. (Appeal) No.1428 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai... AppellantversusShri.T.A.Krishnaswamy.. Respondent-----PRAYER: Tax Case Appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dated 12.2.2007 in ITANo.3268/Mds/2004 against the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) dated 5.10.2004 in IT/Appeal No.267/2004-2005 andagainst the order of the Income Tax Officer, Business Range – VI(3) Chennai 34 dated 31/3/2004 in AAAHT00265J.-----For Appellant: Mr.J.Narayanasamy, Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax-----JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.)By formulating the question of law as to whether, in thefacts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right indismissing the appeal following its earlier order on the issue ofdirections by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) withoutgoing into the merits of the case to see if the re-opening wasvalid, the present Tax Case Appeal is filed. The relevantassessment year is 1998-99. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The assessee filed the return of income for theassessment year 1998-99 on 26.10.1998, admitting a total incomeof Rs.1,00,586/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on 11.3.2004. The assessment for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98 were reopened under Section 147 and were completedon 11.3.2002. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against that order. TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and gavedirection to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment forthe assessment year 1998-99 to look into the source of investmentafresh in the property of 4 plots in VGP Golden Beach as theinvestments had come out of unexplainable sources. Against thatorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assesseefiled an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. TheTribunal, by its order dated 26.7.2004, held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not give direction toreopen the assessment in respect of another year. In themeanwhile, the Assessing Officer, as per the direction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), reopened the assessment andcompleted the assessment.
Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). TheCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), following the order of the Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.23 to 26/Mds/2003 dated 26.7.2004,cancelled the reopened assessment for the assessment year 1998-99observing that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 waswrong and bad in law. Aggrieved by that order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income TaxAppellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue, formulating the substantial question of law, as statedabove.
Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that as againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of theassessment years 1994-95 and 1997-98 in the assessee's own case, the Revenue filed appeals before this Court and the appeals havebeen dismissed in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of 2005 by judgment dated2.1.2006 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF). The said order would squarely cover theissue to the case against the Revenue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
In the judgment dated 2.1.2006 in T.C.Nos.1380 to 1383 of2005 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VII CHENNAI Vs. SHRIT.A.KRISHNASWAMY (HUF), to which one of us (K.RAVIRAJAPANDIAN,J.) is a party, held: "7. Of-course, the factual aspect stated bythe learned Junior Central GovernmentStanding Counsel that the Kartha of HUF filedthe declaration under VDIS might be correct. But, the fact finding authority clearlyrecorded a finding that the properties, whichare the subject matter of VDIS declaration, have been registered in the names of fourindividuals and all of them were assessees bythemselves in the assessment year 1997-98.The Kartha of HUF who filed the declarationunder VDIS is not the owner of theproperties. The contention of the learnedJunior Central Government Standing Counselthat the direction for reopening ofassessment by the Assessing Officer in thehands of the assessee is correct. In respectof the other contention that the directiongiven by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) to reopen the assessment for theassessment year 1998-99 is uncalled for, having regard to the nature of the powergiven to him under the said provision i.e.Section 246 of the said Act. It is automaticthat as and when the Appellate Authoritypasses an order, the original authority ishaving every power to give effect to thatorder in a procedure known to law. However, the Appellate Authority cannot exceed in hispower while exercising jurisdiction vested bythe statute. In the above said factualsituation, we are of the view that there isno infirmity or irregularity in the order ofthe Tribunal so as to warrant entertainmentof the appeals. " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The reasoning stated above in the cited case would apply tothe case on hand on all fours. Following the same, the Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed. KsvSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:1. The Asst Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajaji Bhavan, 3rd Floor Besand Nagar, Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.3. The Income Tax Officer, Business Range – VI (3)Chennai 34.4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Chennai.•1 cc to M/s. Pushyasitaraman, Advocate SR No. 70568KM(CO)SR/7.12.2007T.C. (Appeal) No.1428 of 2007
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Following the same, the Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.