Ita/189/2002 Of P. Rajaswamy v. The Commissioner Of Incometax, Tvm

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 Actagainst the order of the Tribunal confirming penalty levied underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1983-84. Weheard counsel appearing for the appellant and senior standing counselappearing for the respondent. On going through the Tribunal's orderwe find that appellant filed as many as three returns for the assessmentyear 1983-84. While in the first return appellant returned an income ofRs.17,563/-, in the second return filed after search the assessee returnedan income of Rs. 96,200/-. Thereafter assessee filed another return on18.4.1989 declaring a further income of Rs. 1,12, 640/-. All theauthorities below including the Tribunal found that assessee did notvoluntarily disclose the amount of Rs. 96,200/- which remained indeposit in the assessee's name in Syndicate Bank. Even though counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee disclosed this amount under theAmnesty Scheme, it is seen that such disclosure was after search anddetection of deposit by the department. The declaration for the purposeof avoiding penalty should be voluntary and before detection of theconcealed income by the department. Since in this case assesseeconceded income after the department detected the same, assesseecannot avoid penalty. It is seen that the amount of penalty levied isminimum payable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We thereforefind no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. We thereforedismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk