Allowed

Rehabilitation Plantations Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala HC4 Aug 2022ITA/225/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Income Tax Appeal was allowed. The court addressed four substantial questions of law. Questions (i), (ii), and (iii) were answered in favour of the assessee by relying on a Full Bench order, and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment. Question (iv) was similarly answered in favour of the assessee, remitting the matter for afresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment and disposal.

Rehabilitation Plantations Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

ITA NO. 225 OF 2013

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT ITA 137/2012 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN

¶9

BENCH

¶10

APPELLANT:

¶11

REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. KOLLAM-691 305.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AYKAR BHAWAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶16

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2022,

¶17

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ITA NO. 225 OF 2013

-2-

J U D G M E N T

S.V.Bhatti, J.

Heard Mr Kuryan Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr P.K.R Menon learn ed Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Rehabilitation Plantation Ltd is the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram is the respondent. The present appeal arises from the order dated 22.01.2013 in ITA No.137/Coch/2012 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The subject matter of appeal relates to Assessment Year 2007-08.

¶24

The assessee raises the following substantial questions of law:

¶25

i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax without considering the merits of the case?

¶26

ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate tribunal was justified in sustaining the order

¶27

ITA NO. 225 OF 2013

¶28

-3-

¶29

of the Commissioner of Income Tax when the assessing officer completed the assessment after making necessary enquiries and verifications?

¶30

iii. Whether there were materials before the appellate tribunal to believe that the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable in law and is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue?

¶31

iv. Ought not the appellate tribunal to have found that since the loss sustained by the rubber sheet factory was in the course of a business activity, it ought to have been set off against the business income without applying the provisions of Rule 7A ?

¶32

5. The learned counsel appearing for the parties state that question nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are covered by the Full Bench order dated 01.08.2022 in I.T.A No.201/2013. Hence, the questions are

¶33

answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for statistical purposes and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for assessment afresh by keeping in view the order of the Full Bench.

¶34

Substantial Question No. (iv)

¶35

By following the reasoning, consideration and remand of question No.(iii) in I.T.A No. 37/2018, question No.(iv) in the instant

¶36

appeal is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

¶37

ITA NO. 225 OF 2013

¶38

-4-

¶39

for statistical purposes and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for consideration and disposal afresh.