TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unwarranted, unjustified and incompetent. The petitioner filed a return of income on December 31, 1986, declaring a net income of Rs. 8,790 after claiming deduction of more than Rs. 1 crore for depreciation, investment allowance, etc. Subsequently, the petitioner sent exhibit P-1 letter dated February 3, 1987, stating that they are filing a revised return of income for the assessment year 1986-87 for claiming the correct amount of depreciation on the basis of the exact date of installation of machinery. They filed a revised return of income on March 11, 1987. The respondents have contended that the petitioner had filed a bogus return on December 31, 1986, claiming huge amounts by way of deduction for the machinery installed not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording to him, the subsequent return dated March 11, 1987, filed by the petitioner signed and verified by the managing director is only proper, correct and legal return under section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, he submitted that any enquiry or survey conducted by the Revenue in pursuance of the return filed on December 31, 1986, which is non est in the eye of law is illegal and cannot be sustained. This contention raised by the petitioner is not sustainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in CIT v. Masoneilan (India) Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 569, wherein the Division Bench of this court has observed as follows : "Section 292B provides that no return of income shall be invalid or shall be deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round also, the rejection of the subsequent return filed by the petitioner seeking benefit under the amnesty scheme is perfectly justified. In the decision reported in CIT v. K. Mahim [1984] 149 ITR 737, a Division Bench of this court has observed as follows : "An assessee who made a bona fide discovery about having made a previous incorrect return was entitled to make a revised return invoking the enabling provision of section 22(3) of the 1922 Act. Such a course, however, is not open when a previous return was dishonestly made. The Full Bench had no hesitation to reject outright a contention, though 'seriously argued, that an assessee is enabled to put in a return correcting a former inaccurate one notwithstanding the fact that the prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
