2021 (10) TMI 1369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounsel Mr.P.K.R. Menon for the respondent. 2. E.Shamsudeen/Assessee is the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ernakulam/Revenue is the respondent. The assessee being aggrieved by the common order dated 01.02.2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, filed the appeals before this Court under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The details of the orders and the appeals therefrom are stated thus: Sl. No. Assessment Year & Date of Assessment Order Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA No. 1. 2001-02; 30.12.2008 ITA/55/Cent/Kollam/CIT(A)- III/2008-09 dtd 20.03.2015 362/Coch/2015 dtd 01.02.2016 90/2016 2. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....applicable to the case of the appellant? iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the the Appellate Tribunal, erred in interpreting Section 153A and Section 143, more particularly, when the assessing authority completed the assessment by resorting to Section 143, vis-à-vis Section 153A of the Act? v. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, ought not the Tribunal erred in passing the order, based on decisions, not supplied at the time of final hearing, and thereby the appellant was denied an effective opportunity to distinguish the said decisions, relied on for passing the impugned order? vi. Is not the finding of fact by the Appellate Tribunal erroneous and perverse, in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n Anneuxre- E order dated 01.02.2016. The Tribunal relied on the judgment reported in Ashok Chaddha v. Income Tax Officer [2011] 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) and also the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Lucknow Bench) and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The effect of the above consideration is that the infraction now pointed out by reference to the proviso to Section 143(2) is unavailable to search assessment initiated under Section 153A of the Act. It is contextual to refer at this stage of our judgment that the view taken by the judgment in Ashok Chaddha case was taken in the reported cases in Tarsem Singla v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2016] 385 ITR 138 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Promy Kuriakose [201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the distinction now sought to be introduced by the assessee is unsustainable inasmuch as assuming that an explanation is in the nature of clearing up the ambiguity in the main provision or explanation can't add to and widen the scope of the main section. Still, to advance the present contention, the explanation is read in such a manner by the assessee, ignoring the words in explanation (i) namely "save as otherwise provided in this Section" and therefore the applicability of Sections 153B, 153C, all other provision of the Act would apply. Therefore, the constitution placed by the assessee on explanation to Section 153A ignores what is explicitly saved by the very explanation. No meaning much less a meaning available from a plain re....