9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the share income from the firm M/s. Motiram Roopchand and salary income of Rs. 9,000 from the said company. He did not declare the share income from the firm M/s. United Jari Industries and the remuneration from M/s. Laxmi Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. On 1-3-1978, the ITO, Central Circle 1, Jaipur who then had jurisdiction over the case pointed out this lapse to the assessee. The assessee admitted the lapse and offered the share income from M/s. United Jari Industries and remuneration derived from M/s. Laxmi Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. for assessment. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned ITO in addition to the above two amounts offered by the assessee added a further sum of Rs. 11,380 on account of low withdrawals fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is leviable whose mens rea is present in the conduct of the assessee in concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The totality of circumstances also point to the concealment of income by the assessee. A person who was an active partner in the firm cannot ignore that he was not aware of the income accruing to him from the said partnership business. Similarly, a person, who was a director of the Ltd. Company could not say that he was not aware of remuneration he was receiving from the said company as a director. Thus the totality of circumstances point to the fact that the assessee concealed income with a view to devoid the revenue from due amount of tax payable on the correct income, if returned. As held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), CWT v. Ramniklal D. Mehta [1982] 136 ITR 729 (Ori.) and Chhotalal Vashram v. ITO [1984] 19 TTJ (Ahd.) 287. 6. Shri S.K. Tyagi, the learned Sr. D.R. submitted that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income by not declaring the share income from M/s. United Jari Industries and remuneration from M/s. Laxmi Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that the lapse of not declaring the above income was brought to the notice of the assessee by the ITO as per letter dated 1-3-1978 and the assessee offered the aforesaid income for assessment only after detection. The learned Sr. D. R. further submitted that it was not the case of the assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g at Surat and has the income from following sources:--- 1. Share income from M/s. United. Jari Industries Rs. 40,126 2. Share income from Motiram Roopchand Rs. 19,378 3. Fees/salary from M/s. Laxmi Oil Extraction Mills (P.) Ltd. Rs. 18,000 4. Fees/salary from M/s. Motiram Roopchand Rs. 9,900 ------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the course of 144B proceedings. Even if we admit that a revised return was filed by the assessee, from the facts it is evident that it was filed after the omission was brought to the notice of the assessee, i.e., after detection of concealment by the ITO. In this case, the ITO had made certain enquiries through his Inspector about the sources of income of the assessee and it was only after such enquiries that the assessee filed the revised return. The submission of the revised return may, in given case, be voluntary, but such a voluntary filing by itself does not lead to the conclusion that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to conceal his income when he filed the original return. That depends upon the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn was dishonestly made. The Full Bench had no hesitation to reject outright a contention, though "seriously argued", that an assessee is enabled to put in return correcting a former inaccurate one notwithstanding the fact that the previous return was a deliberately dishonest one. Such an exercise could not absolve him from liability to penalty. A different conclusion according to the Court, was "to put a premium on dishonesty". The same principle has been applied by the Madras High Court in subsequent judgment in CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602. The decisions considered by the Court in the aforesaid judgment include Ayyasami Nadar Bros. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 565 (Mad.), Vadilal Ichhachand v. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 569 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
