Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (9) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... original return the income disclosed was Rs. 10,667, whereas in the revised return the income shown was Rs. 29,285. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 42,848. 1966-67 : The original return was filed on April 29, 1966. The revised return was filed on January 12, 1968. In the original return the income shown by the assessee was Rs. 35.251. This was, however, enhanced to Rs. 38,850 in the revised return. The assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 40,270. 1967-68 : The original return was filed on September 14, 1967. The revised return was filed on January 23, 1968. In the original return the assessee showed the total income at Rs. 28,020. This was, however, raised to the figure of Rs. 55,700 in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the basis of the figures given in the revised returns. In other words, the view of the Tribunal was that penalty could not be imposed with reference to the original returns. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an application under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As the Tribunal was satisfied that a question of law arose for decision in the aforesaid three cases, it solicited the opinion of the High Court on the following question : " Whether, after the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return, under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty is imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars in the original return ? " The main .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it of this provision cannot be claimed by a person who has filed a false return knowing it to be false. For filing a revised return under s. 139(5), it is essential that an assessee must not be guilty of deliberate concealment of particulars. In Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT [1977] ITR 419, a Division Bench of this court held that a revised return can be filed only when a person discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. It cannot cover a case where the omission or a wrong statement contained in the first return was deliberate. It is clear from the said case that if an assesses deliberately omitted particulars of his income or made wrong statement in the original return, it he revised return would be of no avail to him as it will n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e revised return itself must fulfil the prerequisites of sub-s. (5) of s. 139. In other words, it must fall within the ambit of that provision. If it cannot be said that an assessee was justified in filing a revised return, then the assessee will not be entitled to get the revised return to be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposition of penalty. A revised return may supplant the original return or replace and substitute it, provided that the provisions of s. 139(5) were fulfilled. In Amjad Ali's case [1977] 110 ITR 419, this court held that a revised return will supplant the original return provided there was no concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Bench held : " Thus, in case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he fact that the assessee purported to file a revised return will not absolve him from liability to pay penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In CIT v. Data Ram Satpal [1975] 99 ITR 507 (All), which was subsequently followed in CIT v. Ram Achal Ram Sewak [1977] 106 ITR 144 (All) (sic), the view taken was that the relevant return for the purpose of s. 271(1)(c), in these circumstances, was the original return and not any return filed subsequent thereto. For the reasons given above, we answer the question in respect of the assessment year 1965-66, against the department and in favour of the assessee by holding that penalty was not imposable on him on the basis of the original return. But, the reference with respect to the assessment year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates