TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assigned by the Commissioner for restricting waiver is valid or not. On such examination, it is seen that in March, 1996, though this Court decided the case of Narayanan (1996 (3) TMI 81 - KERALA High Court), the favourable appellate order obtained by the assessee herein in an appeal filed by them, entitling them for assessment treating the firm as a registered one, was remaining valid. That order was invalidated by the Tribunal only on 20.5.1998, in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In other words, it was only on 20.5.1998, the assessee became disentitled to assessment on the status of a registered firm. The fact that this court has decided the issue in the case of Narayanan (supra) is of no consequence at all till 20.5.1998 when the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is under challenge before us. 2. We heard learned senior standing counsel for the appellants and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent was a firm engaged in the business of arrack. Though it was assessed as a registered firm in the previous years, for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, the respondent firm was assessed as unregistered . The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow registration to the assessee for both years. On a further appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal, the order of the Commissioner was reversed and the order of the Assessing Officer was resto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner himself has accepted the position that in the case of the respondent, all the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. However, the Commissioner limited the benefit of waiver only up to March, 1996 and the reason thereof is that this Court has, in Narayanan (supra) decided the issue against the assessee therein by judgment dated 14.3.1996 and that the case of the respondent is covered by that judgment. 7. Thus, though the Commissioner has accepted that the three conditions provided for in section 220(2A) are satisfied, he has chosen to limit the benefit of waiver to a particular period. While examining the validity of that order, what is relevant to be examined is whether the reason assigned by the Commissioner for restricting waiver is v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
