TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court clarifies limits on reopening tax orders; appeals require delay condonation petition</h1> <h3>DR. G. PUSHPANGATHAN, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, S.N. COLLEGE KILIKOLLUR., SMT. V. SUNANTHAKUMARI, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, S.N. COLLEGE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM., K. SHAJI, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, S.G. COLLEGE KOLLAM., DR. N. JAYADEVAN, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, S.N. COLLEGE KOLLAM., B. SURESH KUMAR, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, S.N. COLLEGE KOLLAM. DR. MARY TRESA P. MIRANDA, KOLLAM. AND N. UNNIKRISHNAN, LECTURER, SELECTION GRADE, S.N. COLLEGE JAWAHAR NAGAR, PATTATHANAM P.O. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 2, OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE. AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAVADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.</h3> The High Court of Kerala ruled that there is no provision under section 147 of the Income Tax Act to reopen orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, reopening of assessments, validity of orders of CIT (Appeals).The High Court of Kerala heard a writ appeal and connected WP(c)s regarding the dispute arising from assessees receiving arrears of salary in the previous assessment year 2004-2005, with a substantial portion being credited to their PF accounts. The assessees claimed benefit u/s 89(1) for spreading over arrears to back years, but the assessing Officer disallowed the claim u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) later held in favor of the assessees, and the Department did not challenge these orders, making them final. However, assessments were reopened u/s 147 of the Act following a High Court decision disentitling employees, leading to the writ petitions challenging the reopening.Upon hearing both sides, the High Court found that there is no provision u/s 147 of the IT Act to reopen orders of CIT (Appeals) on issues decided against the Department. The reopening aimed to tax the same income already decided in favor of the assessees by the Commissioner. The Court emphasized that Revenue could only file an appeal with a delay condonation petition if there was a delay, as no proceedings u/s 147 are maintainable against orders of the CIT (Appeals). Consequently, the Court allowed the writ appeal by vacating the single Judge's judgment and allowed all the WP(c)s by vacating the impugned orders and restoring the final orders of CIT (Appeals).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
