TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue - - - - - Dated:- 15-3-2005 - Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion to this court, relating to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83: "Whether, on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of law as contained in section 139(4) read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Explanation thereto and application of such provisions to the facts of the case, the penalty for concealment and/or gross or wilful neglect was leviable in the instant case?" Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee for understating the closing stock. He, therefore, made an addition of Rs. 11,562 to the applicant's income. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated, and after considering the explanation, the Income-tax Officer had imposed a sum of Rs. 15,000 as penalty. Feeling aggrieved against the imposition of the penalty, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who had held that the applicant had detected the mistake itself and which was bona fide and, therefore, penalty was not imposable and set aside the penalty order. The Revenue feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has restored the penalty order. We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn was filed on October 26, 1978. It may be mentioned here that the applicant having filed the original return within the statutory period as provided under section 139(1) of the Act, it was entitled to file a revised return under the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act. Thus, the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act was a valid return and was to be taken into consideration. No concealment having been found in the revised return, the penalty in respect of the income declared in the return originally filed could not have been taken as the concealment had not yet been detected by the Assessing Officer up till the time the revised return was filed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had rightly considered the order-sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
