2012 (5) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and book profit of ₹ 1,91,85,295/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on 10/11/2010 at total income of ₹ 54,78,922/- and book profit of ₹ 2,23,39,486/-. In this assessment, addition of ₹ 31,54,191/- was made in respect of provision for bad debts in the total income as well as in the book profit. Penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It may be mentioned here that the assessee accepted the addition as no appeal was filed. 3. Penalty proceedings were completed on 30th May, 2011 by levying a penalty of ₹ 10,72,110/-, being the minimum penalty imposable in the case. The case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the assessment has been comp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubmitted that addition of ₹ 31,54,191/- was made in respect of provision for bad debt while computing total income as well as book profit. It is true that the provision was introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, retrospectively, but the amendment was known to the assessee when assessment proceedings were being conducted. Inspite of this knowledge, the assessee did not revise the return and paid tax. This clearly shows malafide on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, it is argued that but for scrutiny assessment, the amount would have escaped assessment leading to loss of revenue accruing on account of conduct of the assessee which cannot be said to be bonafide. He also distinguished the facts of the case of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Inves .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he learned counsel is that the question of concealment has to be decided by examining the position of law on the date of filing return of income. This proposition finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Onkar Saran Sons [1992] 195 ITR 1. It is further submitted that the assessee was not under obligation to file revised return u/s 139(5), which permits the assessee to file such a return if he discovers any omission or wrong statement in the return filed u/s 139(1) or 142(1). This provision does not cast an obligation on the assessee but it is only a provision of permissible nature. 5.2 In the rejoinder reply the learned Sr. D.R. reiterated that the return was not revised, income would have .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X