IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 ITA.No. 863 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.253/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- M/S.KOHINOOR WOOD INDUSTRIES, MOVVAL, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 863 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised by the department is quite a technical one that is, whether filing of re-constituted deed along with return is a mandatory requirement for assessment as a firm. In this case eventhough assessee failed to furnish the re-constituted deed along with return the deed was produced before the return was taken up for assessment. Further the department has no case that the deed was produced beyond the time prescribed for filing the return under Section 139(4) of the Act. So much so we notice that along with return the copy of the re-constituted deed was available with the officer while assessment was taken up. Consequently we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal directing assessment for the respondent as a firm. Department has no case that the firm is not genuine or the re-constituted deed also is not genuine. Consequently we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb