Partnership Firm's Writ Petition Dismissed for Failure to Disclose True Income

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking relief for the assessment year 2000-01 by a Partnership Firm engaged in tiles manufacture and rental income. The firm's admission of additional income during a survey under Section 133A was found to be voluntary, and the respondent's rejection of the petition under Section 264 was upheld. The court emphasized the duty to disclose true income and the importance of timely actions under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's failure to file a revised return under Section 139(5) and belated objections led to the dismissal of the petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition for writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order and grant relief for assessment year 2000-01.
2. Dispute over income admitted during survey under Section 133A of Income Tax Act and subsequent petition under Section 264.
3. Validity of income admission, rejection of petition under Section 264, and assessment of true income.
4. Failure to file revised return under Section 139(5) and challenge to respondent's decision.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Partnership Firm, filed a writ petition seeking relief for the assessment year 2000-01. The firm was engaged in the business of tiles manufacture and rental income. A return admitting income of Rs. 25,18,256 was filed, including additional income of Rs. 25,00,000 offered during a survey under Section 133A. A petition under Section 264 was filed, but the respondent rejected it, stating that once income is admitted, it cannot be withdrawn.

2. The petitioner argued that the income admission during the survey was not voluntary but due to respondent's threat. The respondent rejected the petition under Section 264, citing the timely filing of the return under Section 139(4) and the acceptance of the returned income without additions. The respondent emphasized that the Act requires true income disclosure and filing a return constitutes admission of tax liability.

3. Upon review, it was found that the return was filed within the allowed time, admitting the total income, including the additional amount offered during the survey. The respondent's decision was in line with Supreme Court precedent, emphasizing the duty to disclose true income. The respondent's rejection of the petition under Section 264 was deemed appropriate based on the facts presented.

4. The respondent contended that the petitioner had the option to file a revised return under Section 139(5) but failed to do so. The respondent highlighted that no objections were raised during or after the survey, and the petitioner cannot claim ignorance now. The court upheld the respondent's decision, noting that the petitioner's arguments appeared as an afterthought. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, closing the connected matter.

---