IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 ITA.No. 1604 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.570/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / APPELLANT ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT --------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., H.O., ALUVA. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- ITA No.1604 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This is the second round of appeal pertaining to the assessment of the respondent assessee for the year 2000- 2001. 2. Today, we dismissed another appeal filed by the Revenue vide judgment in ITA No.1224/2009, where reopening itself was found not permissible under the statute. Since first reopening is not permissible, second reopening for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A is also not permissible. The second issue pertains to the assessee's claim for deduction of broken period interest, which stands covered by our judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nedungadi Bank Limited, reported in 264 ITR 545, in favour of the ITA No.1604/2009 -2- assessee. The last issue raised pertains to assessee's claim for deduction of contribution to Employees Pension Scheme. The only ground for disallowance is that under the Scheme, balance amount should have been paid in instalments and not in bulk. The only claim of the Assessing Officer is that entire amount should not have been paid in the previous year, but should have been paid in instalments, later. We do not find any case for interference in the matter, because the assessee at the maximum advanced the claim, which is otherwise allowable in subsequent years. In our view, this has not caused any serious prejudice to the Revenue. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) jg