9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 983. It filed a revised return on July 16, 1984. In the revised return, an additional income of Rs. 3,10,000 was shown. Being of the view that the penal provisions of section 271(1)(c) were attracted, the Income-tax Officer recorded a finding to that effect and, after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, imposed, by order dated December 11, 1985, a penalty of Rs. 3,12,840 under section 271(1)(c), being 150% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the order. Instead, it filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 264 of the Act. It also made an application before the Commissioner under section 273A for reduction or waiver of penalty so impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that that was due to a sheer mistake and that a revised return was filed by the petitioner on July 16, 1984, as soon as the mistake was realised. However, the revised return, it was stated, was filed long before the assessment was taken up by the Income-tax Officer. The submission, thus, is that it is a case of a bona fide mistake. In any event, the correct return was filed before the assessment was taken up by the Income-tax Officer and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. Taking the court through the impugned orders, Shri Trivedi pointed out that the Commissioner has wrongly approached the question involved in the petitioner's revision petition under section 264 and the application under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould have gone in further appeal to the Tribunal ill necessary and to this court by way of a reference. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot now complain. She pointed out that though the Commissioner has referred to the fact of raids, as a matter of fact, he has confirmed the penalty for reasons given by the Income-tax Officer in his order imposing penalty. The order under section 264, according to her, cannot, therefore, be interfered with by this court. As regards the order under section 273A, the fact that the amount of Rs. 3,16,000 was found in the petitioner's premises during the course of search in June, 1982, is a relevant and material fact and the Commissioner was justified in placing reliance on it for rejecting the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showing the correct income was filed on July 16, 1984, long before the proceedings for assessment were taken Lip by the Income-tax Officer ; and (iii) Explanation 5 in section 271, creating a fiction of concealment of income on the date of seizure of an amount in the course of search was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, with effect from October 1, 1984. Admittedly, the Commissioner has not considered the facts in the background of the correct legal position. He has proceeded on the assumption that the concealment of income was detected in June, 1982, and, therefore, the revised return filed in July, 1984, was not of much consequence. The logic of his order is that even if the petitioner had filed the first return s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
