TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under section 80-IA was a bona fide error ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appel- late Tribunal is right in law in deleting the penalty by holding that where the return filed includes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and upon cognizance taken by the Department, the assessee filed revised return admitting the default, the same can be termed as circumstances leading to bona fide mistake or omission, thereby, over looking the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC), wherein it is held that wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he revised return and framed assessment determining the total income at Rs. 69,74,621 as against the returned income of Rs.18,96,110. In penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the claim for deduction under section 80-IA was prima facie a wrong claim and that the said wrong claim was brought to the notice of the assessee by the Assessing Officer, vide notice dated March 14, 2002, under section 154 ; and that it was in response to the said notice that the assessee had filed revised return of income withdrawing the claim under section 80-IA. According to the Assessing Officer, since the assessee had made a wrong claim under section 80-IA of the Act, it could not escape from penalty pro- ceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002, under section 154 of the Act in relation to the assessment year 2000-01. Immediately on the next day the assessee filed a revised income for the year under consideration, that is, the assessment year 2001-02 withdrawing the claim under section 80-IA. The Commis- sioner (Appeals) further found that the Assessing Officer subsequently issued another notice under section 154 of the Act on March 18, 2002, in relation to the assessment year 2001-02, hence there was no valid notice under section 154 in relation to the year under consideration till March 18, 2002. It was further observed that there is no evidence of any investigation or detection of concealment of income by the Assessing Officer as alleged in the impugned penalty order ; tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rawn by filing a revised return. Considering the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. J. K. A. Sub- ramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad) on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Revenue, the Tribunal was of the view that if after having originally filed the return of income, if an assessee subsequently files a fresh return voluntarily before the Department has made any investigation or detected concealment of income, even then he cannot escape from the consequence of his having concealed the income in the original return and will be liable to penalty ; if, on the other hand, the defect in the original return was merely an inadvertent omission or unintended wrong state- ment, the assessee would certainly have a r....