9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d several times and lastly it was adjourned for 3-1-1997 and after that the assessee revised his return of income and declared income of Rs. 1,68,930 and ultimately the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 18-3-1997 on an income of Rs. 1,60,404 and income from other sources at Rs. 18,525. The Assessing Officer proceeded to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice under section 271(1)(c) which was served on the assessee on 29-3-1997. The assessee filed his written reply on 15-4-1997 and it was submitted that initially the assessee had filed return of income of Rs. 1,35,400 and later on revised his return showing an income of Rs. 1,68,930 after applying the net rate of profit @8 per cent as provided under section 44AD of the Act. The return was accepted as such and assessment had been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee had not concealed any particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as the return filed by the assessee stand accepted. The Assessing Officer considered the submission and did not find force in the same as he noted that initially the assessee had shown i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. He also considered the submission of the assessee to the effect that once assessment had been completed on revised return, then the Assessing Officer had no ground to conclude that assessee can be penalized for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and the ld. CIT(A) was of the view that subsequent revised return has no meaning in the eye of law and the Assessing Officer could not have accepted the revised return even if he wished to do so in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. 4. The ld. CIT(A) considered the second contention of the assessee that there was no concealment or furnishing of accurate particulars as prior to any detection by the Assessing Officer, the appellant has filed the revised return. The ld. CIT(A) was of the view that revised return was non est and the assessee cannot be allowed to take shelter behind this plea. In this connection, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhairav Lal Verma v. Union of India [1988] 230 ITR 855 (FB) in which the Hon'ble High Court had discussed the connotation of the term "voluntarily" and had approved their observations in the earlier decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee had reiterated the same submissions and contended that assessee had not revised the original return as noted by the Assessing Officer and by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has simply corrected the first return after realizing some omissions and he had simply applied the provisions of section 44AD. It was well within the right of the assessee to file subsequent return even though the earlier return was filed under section 139(4) of the Act. To substantiate this plea, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556 in which their Lordships have observed that in case the assessee files voluntary return under section 139(4), he has right to file a subsequent return under that provision subject to limitation. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that assessee had filed return on 6-3-1997 and assessee was having time to revise or to file correct return by 31-3-1997, the date when assessment was to be completed. The assessee was well within the time and the ld. CIT(A) had wrongly rejected this very contention of the assessee which was found support from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has corrected the earlier return. In this connection, I have gone through the definition of the word "revise" and Chambers 20th Century Dictionary New Edition had given the meaning to this word "revise" which is as under: "Revise - to examine and correct: to make a new improved version of: to study a new: to look at again If I apply the above to the facts of the case, then admittedly, the assessee had made a new or improved version of the earlier original return by filing the subsequent alleged corrected return but it is to be taken as revised return. 11. Now, comes the second argument of the learned counsel for the assessee as to whether the assessee can file revised return under section 139(5) of the Act in case the original return is filed under section 139(4). To substantiate this, the learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Dr. N. Shrivastava but the ld. CIT(A) in his order has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships in that case have discussed the law on the point and concluded that in case the assessee had filed return voluntarily under section 139(4), he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om civil contract business at Rs. 1,26,878 and he has tried to take a chance by showing the income at lower figure than to the figure as per the provisions of section 44AD. The position would have been different if the assessee had produced the books of account and other related documents and Assessing Officer would not have relied upon them, but it was the case where books of account have not been submitted while the assessee was to produce the base to arrive at the figure of Rs. 1,26,878 as income from civil contract business. The amount was shown intentionally at lower figure and when the Assessing Officer insisted upon to produce the books of account and other related documents, the assessee tried to take shelter under section 44AD of the Act and admittedly, as I held above, the second return was not revised return in the eye of law. The assessee who filed original return at a lower figure without any material to substantiate that lower figure of income from business, the assessee was rightly called guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and it is a fit case in which penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and rightly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
