9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) - Revised return filed before or after detection by the Department - Benefit of Amnesty Scheme - Interpretation of show cause notice - Case law applicability. Analysis: The appeal was against the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 67,002. The assessee, a construction firm, filed a revised return for the assessment year 1983-84, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,27,824, inclusive of Rs. 1 lakh offered for taxation on account of squared up cash credits. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice in February 1986, listing squared up cash credits in 55 names totaling Rs. 1,64,500. The Assessing Officer intended to add this amount to the disclosed income, leading to the penalty imposition, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The main contention revolved around whether the revised return was filed before detection by the Department, entitling the assessee to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. The Department argued that the concealed income was already detected before the revised return was filed, making the assessee ineligible for exemption. The show cause notice indicated that the Assessing Officer had obtained information on the cash credits and requested further details from the assessee, demonstrating prior detection. In the written submissions, the assessee highlighted questions and answers related to the detection by the Department, emphasizing the need for voluntary disclosure before detection. The Tribunal analyzed the show cause notice and the responses provided by the assessee, concluding that the revised return was filed after detection by the Department, thereby disqualifying the assessee from the Amnesty Scheme benefits. The assessee relied on case laws, including a Gujarat High Court decision and a Rajasthan High Court decision, to support their argument. However, the Tribunal found that the cited cases were not applicable to the current scenario due to amendments in the relevant provisions and the timing of the revised return concerning detection by the Department. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.
|
