Ita/202/2009 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax, Kottayam v. M/S. C.c.varghese & Co. Alappuzha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 ITA.No. 202 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.401/COCH/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT / APPELLANT -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): . RESPONDENT --------------- M/S.C.C.VARGHESE & CO, ALAPPUZHA. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010 , ALONG WITH ITA NO. 206 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- ITA Nos.202 & 206 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12[th] day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Even though notice was served, there is no appearance onbehalf of the respondent assessee. 2. However, after hearing learned counsel for the Revenue, we do not find any merit in these appeals filed by the Revenuebecause without making regular assessment under Section 143(3),the Department reopened the assessment under Section 148 merelybecause income returned by the assessee is less than the incomeasssessable under Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act. The firstappellate authority held that Section 44AE has no application unlessthe Department proves that the assessee's accounts are not correctand complete. This order of the CIT (Appeals) is confirmed by theTribunal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of theTribunal. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)