1992 (2) TMI 148 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the revised return filed by the assessee.
3. Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme to the case.
4. Evidence of concealment of income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 8,900 under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found that the assessee had suppressed sales amounting to Rs. 17,561 and interest receipts of Rs. 8,285, totaling Rs. 26,000. Despite the assessee's arguments that the revised return was filed voluntarily and under the Amnesty Scheme, the tribunal upheld the penalty, noting that the concealment was deliberate and systematic.

2. Validity of the Revised Return Filed by the Assessee:
The assessee filed a revised return on 13-1-1987, disclosing the suppressed income. However, the tribunal noted that the original assessment was completed on 10-9-1985, and thus, the revised return was not legally sanctioned. The tribunal emphasized that a revised return can only be filed when the original return is still pending and no assessment has been completed. Therefore, the revised return did not absolve the assessee from the penalty.

3. Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme to the Case:
The assessee claimed that the revised return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme, which encourages taxpayers to declare concealed income without facing penalties. However, the tribunal referred to Circular No. 450 dated 13-2-1986, which explicitly states that the Amnesty Scheme cannot be availed by assessees whose premises had been searched by tax authorities. Since the concealment was detected during a search, the tribunal concluded that the Amnesty Scheme was not applicable.

4. Evidence of Concealment of Income:
The tribunal found that the assessee had systematically maintained details of suppressed sales and interest, as evidenced by 53 slips discovered during the search. The tribunal noted that the assessee did not deny the suppression of income and admitted to making a "clean breast" of the income. The tribunal held that the deliberate and systematic concealment of income was evident and that the revised return filed after detection did not negate the offense of concealment.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the assessee was guilty of deliberate concealment of income and upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The revised return was not legally valid, and the Amnesty Scheme was not applicable due to the prior detection of concealment. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was upheld.