9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises - The appeals are dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce the genuineness of his claim and file statement on 20th June, 1996. On 20th June, 1996, counsel stated that certain agricultural receipts were in cash for which no record was available and original agreements of the family members were not traceable. On 18th June, 1996, revised return surrendering agricultural income was filed. The AO, taking it to be a case of escaped assessment, issued notice under s. 148 of the Act on 16th Oct., 1996 and after accepting the revised returns under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The stand of the assessees was that since agricultural income was voluntarily surrendered before being detected by the authorities, no penalty was leviable. This explanation was rejected. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills vs. CIT (1987) 64 CTR (SC) 199: (1987) 168 ITR 705(SC) was held to be distinguishable. Instead decisions in CIT vs. Dr. Sajjan Singh Malik (1990) 84 CTR (P&H) 180 : (1989) 178 ITR 643(P&H); CIT vs. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar 1978 CTR (Mad) 35: (1977) 110 ITR 602(Mad); Amjad Ali Nazir Ali vs. CIT 1976 CTR (All) 217: (1977) 110 ITR 419(All); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Madras High Court held as under : 'Sec. 139(5) applies only to a limited category of cases where in the original return there was any omission or any wrong statement and not to cases of concealment of false statements. If a case does not fall under s. 139(5), the fact that the revised return was filed before any investigation was started by the IT Department will be of no consequence. The fact that the assessee furnished the particulars before any detection was made by the Department or not will be relevant only when the CIT is considering the question whether the minimum penalty imposable under s. 271(1) should be waived or reduced, on an application made by the assessee under s. 271(4A), but they are foreign to the scope of s. 271(1)(c).' 18.1. The same view has been taken in the following cases : Ganga Parsad vs. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 349(All); Sulemanji Ganibhai vs. CIT (1979) 8 CTR (MP) 11: (1980) 121 ITR 373(MP); Mohd. Ibrahim Azimullah vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (All) 328: (1981) 131 ITR 680(All); CIT vs. Haji P. Mohammad (1981) 23 CTR (Ker) 39: (1981) 132 ITR 623(Ker); Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 323: (1982) 137 ITR 722(Cal); Nav Nirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving been derived from agriculture and, therefore, disclosed the same for rate purposes only. This was deliberate and conscious act and not an omission or any wrong statement which could be later 'discovered' to justify the filing of the revised return. After inquiries were carried by the Revenue, these assessees accepted that agricultural income was part of total assessable income by including above income in the total taxable income in the so-called revised return. The AO thereafter issued notice under s. 148 of the IT Act. In response to above notice, the assessees again accepted agricultural income as part of total income chargeable to tax. The validity of reassessment proceedings could not be and was not questioned before me and, therefore, validity of returns filed by the assessees is not material. The Revenue is correct in contending that having accepted agricultural income as part of total income, the case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income stood established. Nothing was required to be proved by the Revenue. 21. The learned counsel for the assessee, however, contended that surrender made in the revised return was subject to certain conditions. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, to consider the High Court decision. The Hon'ble High Court as per report in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2000) 158 CTR (MP) 26: (2000) 241 ITR 124(MP) reproduced the following finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal : 'The assessee had no chance of carrying through his explanation and the AO too did not record any finding as to the acceptability or otherwise of the explanation of the assessee. Under these circumstances, the proviso to Expln. 1 to s. 271 is not attracted. The Revenue did not at all discharge the burden to prove that there was concealment of income by the assessee. It simply rested its conclusion on the act of voluntary surrender by the assessee which obviously was done in good faith and to buy peace.' 23.1 Their Lordships thereafter held as under : 'In the present case, though it is true that the assessee had not surrendered at all and that he had done so on the persistent queries made by the AO, but once the revised assessment was regularised by the Revenue and once assessing authority had failed to take any objection in the matter, the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised returns and his explanation that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
