Interpretation of "return" under penalty law: whether assessment follows the original return or a timely revised return.

The Tribunal's view that the revised return was not filed due to an accidental or honest omission was treated as a finding of fact, so no referable question of law arose on that point. By contrast, the meaning of "return" in section 10(7), and whether penalty must be assessed by reference to the original return or a revised return filed within time, required interpretation of the statutory provision and was therefore a question of law fit for reference. The matter was allowed to that extent, with a direction to state the case on the formulated legal question.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the revised return was not filed on account of an accidental or honest omission gave rise to a referable question of law, and whether for penalty under section 10(7) the assessing authority must examine the original return or the revised return where a revised return has been filed within time.

Analysis: The finding that the revised return was not supported by an accidental or honest omission was treated as a finding of fact and, on that basis, no referable question of law arose. However, the meaning of the word "return" in section 10(7), and whether it refers to the original return or the revised return where the statute permits substitution by a revised return, required interpretation of the provision and therefore involved a question of law. That question was held fit for reference.

Conclusion: The reference application was allowed to the extent that the Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer the formulated question of law concerning whether penalty under section 10(7) should be based on the original return or the revised return.

---