Prestige Marketing Division IX/28A ID Area, A.M. Road, Erumathala, Aluva, Kerala, represented by its managing partner, Mr. C.A. Subair V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aluva

WA/1948/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Prestige Marketing Division, the appellant, who was aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge regarding the exercise of revision powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). The appellant had previously appealed against an assessment order, and during the pendency of this appeal, the CIT initiated revision proceedings to correct the rate of tax applied, which was beneficial to the assessee in the assessment order. The learned Single Judge found that the issue in the revision was not the same as that in the appeal and thus justified the revision proceedings. The appellant contested this interpretation, leading to the present Writ Appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797442 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL NAIR; TELMA RAJU; AADITYA NAIR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; First Appellate Authority; Income Tax; Revision
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WA NO. 1948 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2023 IN WP(C) 14030/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: PRESTIGE MARKETING DIVISION IX/28A ID AREA, A.M.ROAD, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.C.A.SUBAIR, PIN - 683112 BY ADVS.ANIL D. NAIR TELMA RAJU AADITYA NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 692018 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALUVA, PIN - 683101 SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.1948/2023 -:2:- J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14030/2022 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.9.2023 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 2. Inasmuch as the facts relevant for disposing this appeal have already been stated in the impugned judgment, we do not deem it necessary to reiterate the facts here. Briefly stated, the issue that arose before the learned Single Judge was whether during the pendency of an appeal before the First Appellate Authority under the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'), the CIT could exercise its power of revision under Section 263 of the Act on an issue that had been decided to its prejudice in the assessment order, which was the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority. Although it was the contention of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that, since it had preferred an W.A.No.1948/2023 -:3:- appeal against the assessment order and the appeal was pending before the First Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority under the Act could not exercise its power of revision in relation to the same issue, the learned Single Judge found, based on the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, that the issue that was the subject matter of the revision proceedings was not the same as the one that was decided against the assessee in the assessment order which was the subject matter of the appeal. He, therefore, found that the Revenue was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act to correct the wrong rate of tax that had been applied and which worked to the benefit of the assessee in the assessment order that was the subject matter of the appeal. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge, who has relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court to come to his conclusion. We also find that, at any rate, the right of the appellant to challenge the order proposed to be passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to Ext.P5 revision order passed in accordance with Section 263 of the Act has been reserved to the appellant. The appellant therefore cannot be seen as prejudiced in any manner. For the W.A.No.1948/2023 -:4:- reasons stated above, the Writ Appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp "