IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 ITA.No. 1565 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.589/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- LATE S.SASIDHARAN, REP. BY SMT.SREEJA, WIDOW, SMT.MAHALAXMI, DAUGHTER & SMT.BHAVANI,MOTHER,(LEGAL HEIRS), KAILAS BUNGALOW, MAMPALLIKUNNAM, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NOS.1592, 1593 & 1599 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal Nos.1565,1592,1593 & 1599 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These appeals are filed by the Revenue challenging the orders of the Tribunal confirming orders of the first appellate authority refixing the income of the assesee for the various years. Prior to the assessments involved in these cases, assessee was subjected to search and a block assessment was made wherein huge addition was made representing loans advanced by the assessee, interest earned thereon etc. However, assessee went before the Settlement Commission which refixed the income at around 50% of the income determined in assessment. The department appears to have accepted the order of the Settlement Commission. In fact, the assessments involved in these cases were also completed based on income fixed based on the block assessment. In first appeal, the C.I.T. (Appeal) after noticing the modification of income made by Settlement Commission and after considering the evidence produced by the assessee, redetermined the 2 income against which department filed appeals, which were dismissed by the Tribunal. In these appeals the only contention is that the appellate authority before allowing the appeals did not grant sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer in terms of the requirement of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The right of the first appellate authority to remand the cases in appeal proceeding is restricted through a statutory amendment. Therefore, necessarily he has to decide the case on merits in appeals. So far as denial of opportunity to the Assessing Officer in terms of Rule 46A is concerned, the Tribunal noticed that the C.I.T.(Appeal) has only relied on order of the Settlement Commission and documents produced before it. These are matters within the knowledge of the assessing authority and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that denial of opportunity to the department has not caused any prejudice to it. In the circumstances, we find no 3 merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently appeals are dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms