IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 ITA.No. 66 of 2010() -------------------- ITA.291/Coch/2009 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANNUR. RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: --------------------------------- SHRI. K.T.SREEJAN, SREE SANKARACHARYA COMPUTER CENTRE, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ITA 66 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the suo motu revision order issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. We have heard standing counsel for the appellant and have gone through the orders involved. We notice that the assessee which is engaged in running a Computer Training & Education Institution did not maintain proper bills /vouchers and consequently, the assessing officer proposed to estimate the income. However, assssee agreed for an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs over and above the income returned, which has seen accepted. However, the assessment order is revised by the Commissioner stating that discrepancies are noticed in the expenditure columns particularly, salary paid to temporary staff. However, the Tribunal found that the order cannot be prejudicial to the interest of Rvenue because the assessing officer in principle, did not accept his accounts, but made an addition, which, of course, was limited to Rs. 10 lakhs, on agreed basis. We do not think the ITA 66 /2010 :2: Commissioner is justified in interfering with the agreed assessment under Section 263 of the Act and the Tribunal, therefore, rightly interfered with the same. No substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal warranting our interference under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-