https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36896 The High Court held that penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) should align with the law in force when the original return was filed, not when a revised return was submitted. It emphasized that a revised return does not absolve an assessee of concealment if deliberate concealment existed in the original return. The court rejected the department's argument that a revised return supplants the original, citing precedents and distinguishing conflicting decisions. The court clarified that the extended limitation period under section 153(1)(c) should be based on the actual date of the revised return. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding this principle and awarding costs. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:23:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36896 The High Court held that penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) should align with the law in force when the original return was filed, not when a revised return was submitted. It emphasized that a revised return does not absolve an assessee of concealment if deliberate concealment existed in the original return. The court rejected the department's argument that a revised return supplants the original, citing precedents and distinguishing conflicting decisions. The court clarified that the extended limitation period under section 153(1)(c) should be based on the actual date of the revised return. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding this principle and awarding costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Oct 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36896