9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turns were filed before the detection of concealment of income by the ITO. 4. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that the ITO initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the amount of Rs. 21,614, which according to him was concealed by the assessee while filing the original return on 26th November, 1973. It was explained before the ITO that the proceedings were barred by time and that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. would be applicable to the facts of the case. The third strong point made out by the assessee before the ITO was that before detection of the income alleged to have been concealed, the assessee disclosed the same in the revised return filed on 24th February, 1976 which was eventually upheld by the Appellate Authorities as valid return and, therefore, there was no concealment made by the assessee for which proceedings could be started u/s 271(1)(c). In the present appeal we are concerned mainly with the third point of the assessee discussed briefly above. The ITO noted that the file of the assessee was transferred from the jurisdiction of the ITO, Dist. I (2), Calcutta to K-Ward, Co-Dist. I, Calcutta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and investments made by the assessee could not be properly explained by the documentary evidences and the said investments and credits were shown u/s 69 voluntarily and before detection as income of the assessee. 6. The ITO observed that from the different facts before him it would clearly show that the second revised return was not at all filed voluntarily as the assessee was apprehending that suppression of the said income would not escape the attention of the ITO to whom the case was transferred for detailed scrutiny. He went on to note that the assessee earlier after scrutiny of his bank account with National & Grindlays Bank disclosed Rs. 201 in the first revised return but even then, in the first revised return, the assessee did not disclose the further amount of Rs. 2,800. The ITO observed that such non-disclosure even in the first revised return cannot be considered as a mere unintentional omission. Regarding Rs. 18,000 being unexplained investment, the ITO remarked that it was stated earlier by the assessee that there was no investment during 1972. The ITO mentioned that the assessee apprehending after detection was forced to disclose the above amount including the une ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further that even if the assessee filed the same apprehending that penal action would be taken against him, the assessee nevertheless filed the returns before the ITO was able to detect any specific items of concealed income and confronted the assessee with evidence in that regard. Accordingly, the AAC was of the view that the assessee on these facts could not be treated as having failed to furnish full and true particulars of his income and that the ITO was not justified in imposing the penalty without any regard to the order of the Appellate Tribunal. The penalty order was vacated. Hence this appeal before us. 8. It is submitted by the ld. departmental representative that there was no justification for the AAC to delete the penalty in spite of the fact that the assessee has concealed the particulars of the income as discussed thoroughly in the assessment order as well as in the penalty order. It is submitted that the very fact that the assessee filed revised returns would amply prove that there was concealment made by the assessee in the original return. It is pointed out that in the instant case the assessee was not sincere at any stage of filing of the returns and that in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, as in fact it was the assessee who disclosed the same. It is also urged that in the first revised returns interest from National & Grindlays Bank was shown and under such circumstances how could the assessee be alleged to have concealed the bank deposits in that same bank. It is pointed out that bank statement as required by the ITO could not be produced readily as stated earlier. According to the assessee's ld. counsel, the ITO himself did not discover or detect any income whatsoever. It is submitted that concealment as such means more than mere non-disclosure. In this connection, reliance is placed on a decision and another decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Badshah Prasad vs. CIT (1981) 127 ITR 601 (Pat) in which it was held among other things that it is an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that in order to punish a person it must be established that there was mens rea on his part in committing that offence and if there is no mens rea, no question of punishment arises. The Hon'ble High Court considered the question of filing of revised return and whether such filing of revised return was a camouflage to overcome an omission deliberately made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
