Case LawHigh Court › Ita/1505/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Ita/1505/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)Cochi v. K.f.russel, Kalloor House, Trichur

High Court 19 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1505/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)Cochi v. K.f.russel, Kalloor House, Trichur
Date of order
19 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/1505/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)Cochi v. K.f.russel, Kalloor House, Trichur, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: However, the issue raised by thedepartment i.e. whether filing of a belated return, though valid underSection 139(4), is justification for treating the income returned as ITA 1505/2009 anything other than undisclosed income is left open.

Decision: Therefore, we find no merit in the department's appeal.Consequently appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

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 counselappearing for the respondent-assessee. The total amount of additioninvolved is only Rs.1,68,000/- which was disputed in the blockassessment. However, finding of the two lower authorities includingthe Tribunal is that assessee had filed a return under Section 139(4),though after search, and the same amount was included in the return sofiled. Assessee's counsel produced intimation received under Section143(1) accepting the return so filed and tax is also paid on the disputedincome. Therefore, we find no merit in the department's appeal.Consequently appeal is dismissed. However, the issue raised by thedepartment i.e. whether filing of a belated return, though valid underSection 139(4), is justification for treating the income returned as ITA 1505/2009 anything other than undisclosed income is left open. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms V.K.MOHANANJudge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan