IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 ITA.No. 1505 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.30/COCH/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ SHRI.K.F.RUSSEL, KALLOOR HOUSE, VATANAPPALLY, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 SMT.C.K.SHERIN FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON 19/01/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T. Appeal No.1505 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. The total amount of addition involved is only Rs.1,68,000/- which was disputed in the block assessment. However, finding of the two lower authorities including the Tribunal is that assessee had filed a return under Section 139(4), though after search, and the same amount was included in the return so filed. Assessee's counsel produced intimation received under Section 143(1) accepting the return so filed and tax is also paid on the disputed income. Therefore, we find no merit in the department's appeal. Consequently appeal is dismissed. However, the issue raised by the department i.e. whether filing of a belated return, though valid under Section 139(4), is justification for treating the income returned as ITA 1505/2009 2 anything other than undisclosed income is left open. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms