IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 ITA.No. 341 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/04/2010 IN ITA.589/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ K.C.ASHRAF, KOROTHVCHALIL HOUSE, NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE, 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: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 341 & 342 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. 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 ITA 341 & 342/2010 2 itself is an agreed assessment because on the basis of the original stand contained in the statements furnished by them they could have even contested the assessment without offering the amount for tax. Consequently Appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk ITA 341 & 342/2010 3