Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 3047 2008 SLD 3047 (2008) 301 ITR 301
Kerala High Court

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395


Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law:

Section:

[2008] 301 ITR 301 (KER.) HIGH COURT OF KERALA K.J. Thomas v. Commissioner of Income-tax C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AND T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. I.T.A. NOS. 7 AND 12 OF 2001 JANUARY 14, 2008 Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Additions to income Where it was conceded that assessee got opportunity to file reply and detailed reply was in fact filed and reassessment notice and final order were also issued within time limit prescribed under Act, there was no reason to interfere with order of assessment on ground that written notice was not issued to assessee before completion of assessment under section 143(2) [Assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92] The procedure under section 143(2) is to ensure that an adverse order is issued only after proper opportunity is given to the assessee. Where it was conceded that the assessee got opportunity to file reply and the detailed reply was in fact filed and the reassessment notice and the final order were also issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act, there was no reason to interfere with the order of assessment on the ground that written notice was not issued to the assessee before the completion of assessment under section 143(2). John Ramesh and K.I. John for the Appellant. P.K. R. Menon and George K. George for the Respondent. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.-The common question raised in both the appeals is against the disallowance of interest in the computation of income from a theatre by name "Pandyan Theatre" in which the appellant was a partner. It is seen from the orders produced that the disallowance was made following an earlier order of the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the disallowance of interest was made in the earlier year because the theatre was under construction. However, according to the appellant, the construction of the theatre was completed and the appellant started earning income during the previous year relevant to the two assessment years, viz., 1990-91 and 1991-92 against which these appeals are filed. It is seen that the interest paid is in excess of the income returned. Consequently, the income from the firm is a loss and we…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492