Dismissed

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut v. K.C.Ashraf,Korathvchalil House,Narikuni

Kerala HC28 Oct 2010ITA/341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court reconsidered ITAs challenging a penalty cancellation order by the Tribunal. The court held that since the respondents disclosed income and paid tax on the due date, no penalty was justified for concealment.

What did the court decide?

The appeals ITA Nos. 341 & 342 of 2010 were dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order cancelling the penalty.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut Vs K.C.Ashraf,Korathvchalil… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶3

ITA.No. 341 of 2010() --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2010 IN ITA.589/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH ....................

¶4

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶5

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------

¶9

K.C.ASHRAF, KOROTHVCHALIL HOUSE, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE,

¶10

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 342 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &

¶12

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶13

I.T.A. Nos. 341 & 342 of 2010

¶14

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶17

The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned orders of the Tribunal. What we find is that the amount recovered from the respondents by the customs department was handed over to the Income tax Department. Even though respondents have given various versions about their source of fund, ultimately on the due date for filing return for the relevant assessment year, they returned the income and paid tax, which is accepted by the department. We do not find any justification to levy penalty in a case where the income involved was returned on the due date and tax was also paid thereon. Two appellate authorities, on facts, found that this is a case of disclosure of income in the regular returns based on which assessment was made. We are of the view that respondents' assessment

¶18

ITA 341 & 342/2010

¶19

¶20

itself is an agreed assessment because on the basis of the original stand

¶21

contained in the statements furnished by them they could have even

¶22

contested the assessment without offering the amount for tax.

¶23

Consequently Appeals are dismissed.

¶24

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge.

¶25

(K. SURENDRA MOHAN)

¶26

Judge.

¶27

¶28

ITA 341 & 342/2010 3

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut v. K.C.Ashraf,Korathvchalil House,Narikuni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut v. K.C.Ashraf,Korathvchalil House,Narikuni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansari Charitable Trust,Perumpilavu Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur

Lekha.S Vs the Director,Model & Super Speciality Ho

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Kozhikode Vs Shri.M.v.Narayanan,Ponnani,Malappuram Dt

Sri.a.Janardhanan Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut Vs a.P.Abdu Rahiman