ITO, Alappuzha V. M/s.Coconut Palm Beach Garden, Alappuzha

MA 101/COCH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2584 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JOHN
• Assessee Lawyers: S MAHADEVAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. /COCH/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI CHANDRA PO OJARI (AM) M.P. NO.101/COCH/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 636/COCH/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) THE ITO, WD.1 VS M/S COCONUT PALM BEACH ALLEPPEY GARDEN, C/O N.C. JOHN & SONS PVT LTD, VZHICHERRY, ALAPUZHA PAN : AAAAC4651B (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.K. JOHN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S MAHADEVAN DATE OF HEARING : 21-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-12-2014 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 07-03-2014. 2. SHRI K.K. JOHN, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT IN PURS UANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGH COURT, THIS TRIBUNAL EXAMINE D THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING T O THE LD.DR, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ARE ONLY WITH R EGARD TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO PROVISO (B) TO SEC TION 148(1), THE LD. DR 2 ITA NO. /COCH/2010 SUBMITTED THAT THE EXTENDED PERIOD GRANTED FOR ISSU E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, PROVISO (B) TO SECTION 148(1) WAS INSERTED BY FINAN CE ACT, 2006 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-10-1991. THEREFORE, T HIS PROVISO IS APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. WE HEARD SHRI S MAHADEVAN, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. 4. WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ARGUMENT IN TERMS OF PROV ISO (B) TO SECTION 148(1) WAS ADVANCED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE A PPEAL WAS HEARD. IN FACT, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AT PARA GRAPH 7 OF THE ORDER: 7. THOUGH THE LD D.R CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 143(2) SHALL GET EXTENDED IN T ERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SEC.148(1) OF THE ACT, YET WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE TIME LIMIT PRE SCRIBED UNDER SEC.143(2) ONLY IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH C OURT. ACCORDINGLY WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD D.R RELATING TO THE PROVISO TO SEC.148(1). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IS A CONSCIOUS DECISION IN COMPLIANCE TO THE OBSERVATION AND DIRECTION OF THE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR, MUCH LESS, A PRIMA 3 ITA NO. /COCH/2010 FACIE ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 05 TH DECEMBER, 2014 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE ITO, WD.1, ALLEPPEY 2. M/S COCONUT PALM BEACH GARDEN, C/O N.C. JOHN & S ONS PVT LTD, VAZHICHERRY, ALAPUZHA 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-IV, KOCHI 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH