Ita/114/2001 Of Sri.k.balakrishnan, Palakkad v. The Asst.commr. Of Income Tax,Palakkad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 ITA.No. 114 of 2001() --------------------- ITA.147/COCH/1993 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- SRI.K.BALAKRISHNAN,VEGETABLE MERCHANT,BIG BAZAR,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. KMV.PANDALAI SRI.KMV.PANDALAI SMTS.HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT: --------------- 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-I, PALAKKAD.CIRCLE-I, PALAKKAD. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN.COCHIN. ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR SC FOR R THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON 17/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.114 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified insustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act. After hearing both sides and after going through the recordsof the case, what we notice is that as against the returned income ofRs.32,000/-, the income assessed which is seen contested isRs.5,65,060/-. The Assessing Officer found conscious suppression ofconsignment stock maintained by the assessee outside Kerala. In fact,the profit returned by the assessee works out on a turnover ofRs.63,48,603/- only at 2%. However, on enquiry the Assessing Officernoticed that the reason for low profit is assessee's failure to accountvalue of consignment stock maintained outside State. It is on clearfinding of suppression and concealment of income the AssessingOfficer levied penalty and that too, only minimum penalty is leviedunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is confirmed by the Tribunal. We do not find any substantial question of law arising from the ordersof the Tribunal. Consequently appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge BHABANI PRASAD RAYJudge pms