Ita/61/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kozhikod v. Shri.p.k.sulfi, Kozhikode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 ITA.No. 61 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/08/2009 IN ITA.592/COCH/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: ---------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- P.K.SULFI, KUNDACHALIL HOUSE, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = I.T.A. 61 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. Raman, Ag. CJ. J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal confirmingthe order of the first appellate authority who cancelled the imposition ofpunishment. The Tribunal found, based on facts, as narrated by theassessing authority and also the first appellate authority, that when theamount was seized by the Customs authorities and took over possession bythe Income-tax authorities, either time limit for filing the regular return orfor filing revised return for the assessment year 2005-06 was not over.Seizure of the amount was on 24.11.2004. The assessee was bound to filethe return of income for assessment year 2005-06 on 31.7.2005 and declarehis income. Return was filed on 1.8.2005 declaring the seized amount andthe assessee has explained the source of income. In such circumstances, theTribunal agreed with the finding of the first appellate authority. Thus this isa pure question of fact. Even though it is contended by the learned StandingCounsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue that by fiction of law, theseized amount should be deemed as concealed income, this is not a contention raised either before the first appellate authority or before theTribunal as borne out from the records. As such it is not an issue arisingfrom the order and further no question of law as such is framed on the aboveissue. For these reasons, the appeal fails. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN,(Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) knc/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE).