1983 (4) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng that he had made certain investments, but the visible sources of income. were not sufficient to explain the investments and, therefore, he was prepared to return the shortfall as income of the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69. He pleaded that in view of this voluntary disclosure of his affairs and the fullest co-operation for early finalisation of the settlement proposals, the penalty imposed may be waived. It is not in dispute that till today no action has been taken by the Commissioner on this application for waiver of the penalties. But taking this application as information, notices under section 148 of the Act were issued in response to which the assessee filed returns showing the income which he was prepared to disclose and asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiated and the assessee filed revised returns disclosing the real income. Assessments have been completed accordingly and it cannot be disputed by the assessee that the filing of the revised returns amounted to admission of concealment in the original returns. Prima facie, therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable in respect of the concealment in the original returns but the case of the assessee is that such penalty must be deemed to have been waived by a general order of the Board. This refers to the advertisement by the Board reproduced in the case of Taiyabji Lukmanji. In particular, the advertisement issued under the authority of the Board states that 'if the original returns filed by you is false, why not file a revised ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ement, such as that referred to in the present case, would amount to a promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel has now come to stay because the Supreme Court has approved it in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326. The department has clearly made it appear that the filing of revised returns will not invite the imposition of penalty. It is not possible for the department to resile from that position and claim that penalties should be imposed in spite of such a public advertisement. It was pointed out on behalf of the revenue that the advertisement was given by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, which could not be treated as a circular of the Board. B....