Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pricol Limited

Madras HC9 Mar 2016TC/1273/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court held that since no Authority had recorded a finding of failure to make true and full disclosure by the assessee, reopening beyond four years was incorrect. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The tax case appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax is dismissed with no costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Pricol Limited — Income Tax | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 09.3.2016

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

and

¶6

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.1273 of 2007

¶8

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore.

¶9

M/s.PRICOL Ltd., Coimbatore.

¶10

...Appellant Vs ...Respondent

¶11

APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the

¶12

order dated 31.8.2006 made in I.T.A.No.3339/Mds/2004 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 1994-95.

¶13

For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman

¶14

Judgment was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J

¶15

The above appeal is admitted on 8.10.2007 on the following substantial question of law :

¶16

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening under Section 147 is not in accordance with law, since reopening is made after four years from the

¶17

(2)

¶18

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J AND N.KIRUBAKARAN,J

¶19

¶20

end of the assessment year, even though the years prescribed under Proviso to Section 147 have to be read with Section 149 where four years have been extended to 7 years and the income escapes to charge is more than Rs.50,000/-?"

¶21

Heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department/appellant and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.

¶22

None of the three Authorities have recorded any finding that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. Once this finding of fact is clear, the reopening of assessment was incorrect. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is correct.

¶23

For reopening the assessment beyond the period of four years, but within seven years, the Department should show that there was a failure to disclose true and full information. Since it is not there, the reopening was bad.

¶24

Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. No costs.

09.3.2016

Internet : Yes

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai.

¶29

TCA.No.1273 of 2007

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pricol Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pricol Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Srinivasa Vyas Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S.Tril Infopark Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer (Tds)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri.K.S.Thirumalaivasan

Ennore Foundries Limited Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Commissioner of Income Vs Shri.S.a.Thooyamani

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Textool Company Ltd.