IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 36 of 2001() -------------------- ITA.692/COCH/1995 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ----------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: ------------- SRI.G.SUMANESAN, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LIC KAYAMKULAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.Appeal No.36 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though the question as to nature of income of the Development Officer, L.I.C. is covered in favour of the Revenue by decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. T.K.GINARAJAN, DEV. OFFICER, L.I.C. OF INDIA (2002) 253 ITR 463, we notice that the Assessing Officer rejected the return and made assessment through intimation issued under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Since nature of income is a debatable issue, it was not proper for the Assessing Officer to reject the return and make assessment under Section 143(1)(a). This is the view taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SHIKHARCHAND JAIN (2003) 263 ITR 221. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Madhya 2 Pradesh High Court and therefore, following the said judgment we dismiss the department's appeal on this ground. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms