9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the return filed on May 24, 1971, could be treated as a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the CBDT circular amounted to a promise that penalty will not be imposed if a revised return offering concealed income is filed. 3. Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner could impose penalty despite the CBDT advertisement dated January 5, 1971. 4. Whether penalty was imposable by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in relation to income deemed from undisclosed sources. 5. Whether the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) are applicable given the income declared in the return filed on May 24, 1971. Summary: Issue 1: Revised Return u/s 139(5) The court held that the return filed on May 24, 1971, is a "revised return" as contemplated u/s 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. The incorrectness in the original return had not been discovered by the Income-tax Officer, and the revised return was filed before any discoveries of evasion were made. The Department, having assessed the income based on that return, cannot claim it was not a revised return. The Department's stand amounts to "approbate and reprobate," which is not permissible in law. Issue 2: CBDT Circular as a Promise The court concluded that the CBDT circular issued on January 5, 1971, has the status of "orders, instructions, and directions" u/s 119 of the Act. The advertisement was a general relaxation in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 271, aimed at collecting more revenue by incentivizing the public to disclose suppressed income. The court emphasized that such circulars are binding on the officers of the Department and must be adhered to. Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty Despite CBDT Advertisement The court held that it was not open to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose a penalty under the circumstances. The advertisement amounted to a promise that penalty would not be imposed for concealing income if it was offered for assessment before its discovery by the Department. The court stressed the importance of the Department's reliability and the need to honor such promises. Issue 4: Penalty for Income from Undisclosed Sources The court did not find justification for imposing a penalty in relation to income deemed from undisclosed sources, given the revised return filed before any actual discovery by the Department. Issue 5: Applicability of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) The Department agreed that the income returned is more than 80% of the assessed income, thus the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. Consequently, the question of penalty will have to be adjudicated without the deeming provisions of the Explanation. Answers to Questions: 1. In the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 2. In the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 3. In the negative and in favor of the assessee. 4. Explanation to section 271(1)(c) does not apply. 5. Explanation to section 271(1)(c) does not apply. No order as to costs.
|
