TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee-appellant is not at all guilty of either any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting any penal action under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and as such, the order upholding the imposition of penalty is wholly unwarranted. 3. That the deduction under section 80-I claimed which has been denied to the assessee-appellant was under a bona fide belief that the same was admissible to he assessee-appellant during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal and as such, there is no default of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." 2. The assessee filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 4,60,760 claiming deduction under section 80-I of the Act to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vised return was filed. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative contended that the revised return was filed only when the same was detected by the Department and relied upon the decision pronounced in Henry Isidore v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 496 (Mad.). We have considered the rival submissions. 5. On perusal of record and after considering the rival submissions, it is seen that the assessee vide its written reply dated 20-8-1999 claimed that the first contract on the Railways was received by the assessee on 22-3-1998 and the permission for the bulk manufacturing was given by the Railways vide letter dated 28-8-1998. The assessee filed revised return of income on 9-9-1999 withdrawing the claim of deduction under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter on similar lines was also issued on 12-8-1999 for filing the requisite information with corroborative evidence and the reply by the assessee was also not specific. After seeing these queries raised by the Department, the assessee filed revised return on 9-9-1999 withdrawing claim of deduction under section 80-I claiming that it was inadvertently claimed in the original return though by oversight. We do not agree with the contention of the assessee that it was a bona fide mistake. The assessee cannot be presumed to be unaware about its starting of manufacturing. Now the assessee is trying to get the relief out of technicalities, which in our considered opinion, should not be allowed. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
