TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded in 1968 would be applicable in the present case ? " The assessee was a commission agent and a dealer in silver ornaments, in Agra, the business, being carried on in the name and style of M/s. Verma Silver Ornaments. For the assessment year 1967-68, a return showing an income of Rs. 5,734 was filed on the 3rd October, 1967. On the 25th, May, 1970, a revised return was filed showing an income of Rs. 3,246. In the course of the previous year, assessee's premises had been searched by the Central Excise Department, and certain goods comprising gold, silver, silver ornaments and cash were recovered from the premises. On enquiry being made by the ITO regarding the search it was stated by the assessee that the articles had been sent to him fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment was completed for the assessment year 1963-64, thereafter notice under s. 148 was issued and in response to that the assessee filed a revised return on 9th August, 1965, disclosing the same income on which it was originally assessed. A supplementary assessment was made by including a sum of over Rs. 15,000 in the total income, and proceedings for penalty were also initiated. With effect from 1st of April, 1964, s. 271 (1)(c) had been amended and an Explanation added to it. The question arose as to whether the penalty proceedings had to be decided in accordance with the amended law inasmuch as the assessee had filed a return in pursuance of the notice under s. 148 on 9th August, 1965, when the amendment to s. 271(1)(c) was already in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led another revised return, which disclosed the correct income, but this was done by the assessee only after the ITO confronted him with the result of inquiries made by him which established that the assessee had concealed his income. It was urged before this court that inasmuch as in the revised return the assessee had not concealed any particulars of his income, there was no concealment of income on his part, and as such, no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) could be imposed. Repelling this contention this court held that a revised return cannot be filed by an assessee who has deliberately concealed the particulars of his income, an inasmuch as this was what the assessee had done in that case, the revised return filed by him was invalid, and cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is filed. This view runs directly counter to the consistent view of this court beginning from Ram Achal's case [1977] 106 ITR 144 (All), and with respect we are unable to subscribe. Counsel for the department also invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. A. Malbary and Bros. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 295 (SC), but we are neither able to see how that case helps the department, for, the question with which we are concerned in the present case did not arise for determination there, nor does that case lay down any principle which would affect the controversy involved. Reference to s. 153(1)(c) for the purposes of demonstrating that the view that the original return survives for purposes of imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
