9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt]. We do not think that there is any reason to set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The assessment carried out has taxed the income which came to the assessee in the relevant year. - ITA No. 94 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2018 - MR. K. VINOD CHANDRAN AND MR. ASHOK MENON, JJ. For The Appellant : Sri.Jose Joseph, SC, For Income Tax For The Respondent : Sri. K. J. Saji Isaac And Dr. Elizabeth Varkey JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. The Revenue is in appeal before this Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-J). At the outset we have to notice the chequered path taken by the assessment for assessment year 1996-97. The assessee was a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Assessing Officer had relied on the claim made by the assessee against Skyline Builders to estimate the higher income. Since the disputes between Skyline Builders and the assessee were yet to be resolved, there was a direction to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment, without looking into the claims filed against Skyline Builders. An Income Tax Appeal was filed by the Revenue before this Court as ITA No.91/2007. 3. In the meanwhile, the assessee had approached this Court with WP(C) No.28277/2004 against proceedings initiated for recovery of admitted tax. The said Writ Petition was pending here for four years. On 23.7.2008, that Writ Petition was dismissed as per Annexure-F judgment. By that time, the appellate order at Anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Annexure-R2(b). 6. The preliminary objection raised by the respondentassessee is that there could be no appeal maintainable as against the original order of the Tribunal, since there is one passed under Section 254 now. The assessee relies on the decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court in (1975) 1 SCC 774 [Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar] and (2000) 6 SCC 359 [Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another] . The decision in Susil Kumar Sen (supra) was with respect to a review under Order 47 Rule 1. Original judgment was challenged in a review, which came to be allowed and modifications were made and a new decree was passed. The Supreme Court held so in such fact situation : 2. It is well settled that the effect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order was passed again without the assessee having paid up the admitted tax. Merely because the assessment order was set aside and remand was made for fresh assessment, the statement filed by the assessee would not stand effaced. The appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also that before the Tribunal were not maintainable. Be that as it may, we see that on the remand made there was a reassessment carried out as is available at Annexure R2(c). A reading of Annexure-R2(c) shows that the contract receipts received during the year was ₹ 14,67,187-/ on which the net profit is estimated at 8.1%. The income tax is calculated with interest under Section 234 A, B and C and there was a demand of only ₹ 2,785/-; af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
