9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not revealed the entire taxable income. These returns have been filed before the amendment of 1968. However, in some cases a revised return and in some cases a return consequent to reopening of the assessment under ss. 147 and 148 of the Act has been filed after the amendment became operative. In these cases, a question has arisen as to whether the penalty should be imposed on the basis of the first return or on the basis of the second return. Some judgments have taken the view that it is the last return which has to be seen because the concealment is also present in the last return. On the other hand, other judgments have taken the view that the concealment took place in the first return and hence, it is the date of the first return that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -[1985] 156 ITR 70 (Delhi)], the question was whether the date of the concealment was the date of the original return or the date of the revised return. The revision of the return in that case was about certain other particulars, so the Tribunal had held that filing of the revised return made no difference and the actual concealment was on the date of the original return. This view was upheld on the findings of the Tribunal. These are three judgments of this court. Mr. Wadhera has referred to the judgments of some other High Court where a different view has been taken. But, at the same time, it appears that the preponderance of judgments take the view that the concealment is to be based on the original return and that view has been adop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice under s. 148 was filed on May 25, 1970, and showed the income as Rs. 5,95.0. As both these returns were filed after 1968, the penalty was imposed by the ITO on the application of the amendment. But, the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty had to be imposed according to the law applicable when the original concealment took place that is, in accordance with the judgment in Sucha Singh Anand's case [1984] 149 ITR 143 (Delhi) aforementioned. It is necessary to emphasise the fact that Shrimathi Waryam Kaur was assessed for the same income on the basis that the Department discovered that she had constructed a house at Ghaziabad. That assessment was made on April 30, 1966. So, the Department was fully aware of the concealment bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed for the same concealment concerning which a notice was issued under s. 147(a). In other words, there was no concealment in 1970. The facts were known to the Department in 1966, so the concealment must necessarily had to be earlier, and, consequently, the provisions of the Act as they stood in 1966 or earlier had to be applied to this case. The mere fact that the assessee filed a return showing the same income in 1970, was on the basis that the income had to be included in the hands of his wife. This was a question of opinion and not a case of concealment. Later on, the assessee accepted the fact that the amount should be added to the income of his wife, so he filed a revised return. Nevertheless, the concealment was in 1962 and not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
