IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 116 of 2008() --------------------- ITA.248/COCH/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ THE KERALA MINERAL AND METALS LIMITED, KOLLAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON 24/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.116 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though assessee has not entered appearance after service of notice, we have heard Senior Standing counsel appearing for the appellant. On going through the order of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, we notice that Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 263 on a mistaken assumption that substantial amount of over Rs.1 crore pertains to claim of gratuity not paid by the assessee. However, in the course of hearing proceedings under Section 263, assessee substantiated that Rs.6.32 crores was paid to the approved gratuity fund during the previous year. However, the matter was remanded for verifying direct payment of Rs.18,76,068/-. This order is vacated by the Tribunal saying that audited accounts establish actual payments. Even though Standing Counsel submitted that Tribunal should have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer after upholding the order of the Commissioner, we do not think there is any 2 scope for remanding the matter now nearly after 10 years of the relevant year because respondent is a Government of Kerala undertaking, the audited accounts of which were accepted by the Tribunal. 2. The next question pertains to proposal for assessment of interest on the amount advanced by respondent to another Government Company at the request of the Government. The Tribunal has relied on communication between respondent and the Government which shows that loan advanced was interest-free advance. Therefore, there is no scope for interfering with the order of the Tribunal on this issue also. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms