9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal return with the revised one with the effect of completely effacing the original return. Once we have found that the revised return cannot have the effect of effacing the original return, it is explicit that concealment of the particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were revealed to the assessing officer in the course of proceedings under the Act. There could be no manner of doubt that, if the assessing officer in the course of any proceedings under the then Act becomes satisfied about the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, he is entitled to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty as per Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Decided against the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order was issued, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately resulting in the imposition of penalty of ₹ 65,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 26.06.1997. Assessee challenged the order of imposition of penalty before the CIT (Appeals). By order dated 11.12.1998, the appeal was allowed finding that the imposition of penalty was not correct. Challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals), the department filed I.T.A. No.84 of 1999 before the Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal after relying upon the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. A.Sreenivasa Pai (242 ITR 29) and confirmed the order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imposed since the requirements of the said statutory provision was not satisfied in the light of the fact that the alleged concealment of income was not revealed in the course of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in Dhampur Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax (90 ITR 236), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. (191 ITR 156) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (241 ITR 124) and canvassed for the proposition that once the revised return is filed, the original return ought to be treated as never filed in the eye of law. 7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.K.Raveendranath Menon opposing the aforesaid contentions ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given to an assessee by law. When the assessee files a revised return, he is in fact admitting that the original return filed by him was not correct or proper. The revised return filed by the assessee will be substituted in the place of the original return. The effective return is thus the revised return. 10. However, in order to treat the revised return as the true and complete record, certain conditions are to be satisfied. The first of which is that, if the assessment relates to a period prior to 1.4.1988, the revised return must be filed either before two years from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. For a revised return to have the legal attributes of one as ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
