9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (9) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. On 30th January, 1976, a raid was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sagari (S.D.M.) in the business/residential premises of the assessee-HUF. On 31st January, 1976, the assessee filed revised returns showing total income of Rs. 17,500 in the first year and Rs. 18,000 in the second year under appeal, representing income of pawning business. In these returns, the assessee did not show any house property income. On 12th March, 1976, the ITO got the possession of seized material from the S.D.M. On 24th March, 1976, the ITO issued a notice u/s 132(5) of the Act, calling upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of the seized material. On 19th March, 1977, and 17th March, 1977, the ITO framed the assessments captioned "143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a legal issue as under: "I have considered the arguments of the appellant and the facts of the case. In this case no notice u/s 139(2) was issued. The appellant did not file the original return within the period prescribed by s. 139(1). Obviously he had filed the return u/s 139(4)(a) of the IT Act. A revised return u/s 139(5) can only be filed if a person has furnished a return either u/s 139(1) or u/s 139(2) of the IT Act and later on discovered any omission or wrong statement therein. It is, therefore, evident that in this case the revised return cannot be treated as a revised return. Moreover, the appellant filed the return only after a search was conducted at his residence by the S.D.M. So it is evident that he did not disclose his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e also invited our attention to the parallel and concurrent proceedings for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 in the assessee's own case and pointed out that the ITO himself had imposed penalty of Rs. 100 only on identical facts and circumstances obtaining in that year. In this connection, he stated that for that year, the assessee had originally returned its income of Rs. 7,100 consisting of Rs. 7,000 income of pawning business and Rs. 100 house property income. In the revised return, which also was filed on 31st January, 1976, the assessee had declared total income of Rs. 13,000 representing income of pawning business. The ld. counsel for the assessee also invited our attention to the affidavit of Shri Devi Prasad, the Karta of the assessee HUF file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the IT matters. In fact, the ITO had not an inkling about the raid till he gathered the material from the S.D.M. on 12th March, 1976 in response to a notice u/s 132(1) of the Act. But prior to that date, the assessee itself voluntarily revised its returns of income showing larger income than that declared in the return originally filed. In fact, the ITO has framed the assessment on the basis of the revised returns filed by the assessee. The only thing which the ITO did was to include the house property income of Rs. 100 only in each of the years as was done by him in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73. Again it is pertinent to note that since the ITO was not sure as to in whose hands, the income was really assessable, he framed the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
