IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 ITA.No. 8 of 2010() ------------------- ITA.536/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE -------------------------------------- M/S.KUREETHADAM WINES, C/O.DIANA TOURIST HOME, PIRAVAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.8 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel for the respondent. The assessee which is engaged in liquor business was originally assessed under Section 44(AC) of the Income Tax Act. Later the Assessing Officer noticed that additional income tax was not levied and, therefore, the assessment was rectified under Section 154 of the Act, against which assessee filed appeal before the C.I.T.(Appeals), leading to cancellation of Section 154 order. The assessment was thereafter revised under Section 147 based on decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VS. SANYASI RAO & OTHERS reported in 219 ITR 330 and the income from liquor business was fixed at Rs.7,91,650/-. In between, on assessee's application, the Commissioner issued order under Section 264 directing the Assessing Officer to give credit for TDS under Section 206 of the Act, which was also granted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee filed second 2 round of appeal against the revised order issued by the Assessing Officer contending that the income assessed from business is incorrect. However, C.I.T.(Appeals) found that the income fixed had already become final by virtue of earlier round of litigation and in the second round, the question cannot be raised in an appeal filed against revised order issued by the Assessing Officer pursuant to order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) under Section 264 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected assessee's second appeal on the ground that the C.I.T.(Appeals)'s order against regular assessment had become final and in fact pursuant to C.I.T.(Appeal)'s order, the income from business was modified to Rs.7,43,730/-. We do not find anything wrong with the order of the Tribunal because the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal was only a revised order issued by the Assessing Officer based on revisional order issued by the Commissioner under Section 264 wherein the Commissioner had only directed to give credit for tax 3 deducted at source. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and the same is consequently dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms