Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1952 (4) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be imposed. The facts are:-The assessee deals in purchase and sale of land and owns property. He did not submit a return in spite of service of notice under Section 22(2) of the Act. On a notice under Section 22(4) being served on him, he submitted a return on 24th February, 1948, for the assessment year 1947-48 in which he disclosed sales of plots and fields to the extent of ₹ 59,222 but instead of returning the actual profit that he made on these sales he returned profit at a flat rate 5 per cent. and returned a loss under the head business . The Income-tax Officer, not being satisfied with this obviously incorrect return, issued a notice under Section 23(3) calling upon the assessee to prove the cost price of the land sold an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e flat rate of 5 per cent. Although it is not stated in the application or the statement dated 11th March, 1948, it was urged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the true profits were not returned as the books were not ready. This contention was however not pressed before the Tribunal. Thus on the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal the submission of incorrect return was intentional and the return was sought to be corrected when the dishonesty was noticed by the Income-tax Officer. 4. Section 28(1)(c) provides:- If the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his incom .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . According to the latter, Section 28(1)(c) is not attracted if a revised return disclosing true profits is filed before the order of assessment is passed, or at any rate, before a notice under Section 28(1)(c) is ordered. The Accountant Member did not find that the assessee did not conceal particulars of his income or did not deliberately furnish inaccurate particulars of such income when he made the return. The finding of the Tribunal indicates that the facts required by Section 28(1)(c) are established. On a perusal of the opinion of these two officers, it appears that the only question that was argued before them was a question of law as referred to this Court for opinion. In view of the difference of opinion, the case was referred to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... verification requires a declaration that the return is correct and complete and that the amounts of total income and total world income and other particulars shown are truly stated and that no other income accrued or arose or was received by the assessee during the account year and that he had during the said year no other source of income. The statement filed on 23rd March, 1948, does not obviously comply with those requirements. Part IV of the return provides for furnishing particulars of income from business to be disclosed in the manner stated therein. As the assessee had followed the mercantile system of accounting he had to disclose the figure of profit or loss as appearing in his books of account, increased or decreased by the severa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch, 1948, has therefore to be ignored for this purpose. 7. Our answer therefore is that where an assessee seeks permission to revise the return as originally filed after the assessee's dishonesty has come to the notice of the Income-tax Officer a penalty under Section 28(1)(c) can be imposed. It is not necessary to consider the hypothetical case of an assessee who submits a revised return and the application of the decisions in Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and U.P. v. Badridas Ramrai [1939] 7 I.T.R. 613 and Attorney-General v. Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company, Limited, as Marsh's Executor [1934] 19 Tax Cas. 136 relied on by the learned counsel for the Commissioner and challenged by the other side. The High Court cann .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates