IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 ITA.No. 189 of 2002() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDERS IN ITA.101/1995 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ----------------------------------- P.RAJASWAMY,M/S.RAJA JEWELLERY, CHALAI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/REVENUE ------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SC SRI. P.K. R. NAIR (SR.) & SRI. GEORGE K GEORGE THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 189 OF 2002 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1983-84. We heard counsel appearing for the appellant and senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent. On going through the Tribunal's order we find that appellant filed as many as three returns for the assessment year 1983-84. While in the first return appellant returned an income of Rs.17,563/-, in the second return filed after search the assessee returned an income of Rs. 96,200/-. Thereafter assessee filed another return on 18.4.1989 declaring a further income of Rs. 1,12, 640/-. All the authorities below including the Tribunal found that assessee did not voluntarily disclose the amount of Rs. 96,200/- which remained in deposit in the assessee's name in Syndicate Bank. Even though counsel 2 for the assessee submitted that assessee disclosed this amount under the Amnesty Scheme, it is seen that such disclosure was after search and detection of deposit by the department. The declaration for the purpose of avoiding penalty should be voluntary and before detection of the concealed income by the department. Since in this case assessee conceded income after the department detected the same, assessee cannot avoid penalty. It is seen that the amount of penalty levied is minimum payable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We therefore find no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. We therefore dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3