TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me and style of M/s. Babu Bhai Rashid Bhai is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Bidi. According to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee was operating a Bank Of Baroda benami account of the concern in the name of M/s. Rukshar Ahmad who is son of the assessee. The said account remained undisclosed for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and in the year in question i.e. 2006-07. After about 4 months of issue of 143(2) notice, assessee filed revised return owning up the benami account in the impugned year and subsequent 148 proceedings in the assessment years 2004-05-2005-06. The additions were accordingly confirmed, thereafter, ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings which the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be claimed by a person who has initially filed a return, knowing it to be false - CIT vs. Radhey Shyam (1980) 123 ITR 125 (All.), CIT vs. Badridas Ramrai Shop (1939) 7 ITR 613 (Nag.) In other words, Section 139(5) is not applicable in cases of concealment of false statements - Hamila Fancy Stores vs. CIT (1976) 104 ITR 190 (Mad.). Omission or wrong statement in assessee - Snanda Ram Deka vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988 (Gauhati). But the omission or wrong statement, referred to above must have a bearing on the assessment of the assessee itself and is not that every incorrect statement would enable the assessee to file a revised return - Hamila Fancy Store vs. CIT (1976) 104 ITR 190 (Mad.). In view of the above, it is very much clear that no om....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 16-10-2007. For the first time, the query regarding Benami account was raised much later on 16-05-2008 by asking for working of peak of transactions shown in the revised return qua the Benami account. Since the assessee had revised the return before detection, the revised return is voluntary and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. Reliance is placed as under:- (i) DCIT vs. IVF Holdings (P) Ltd. Mumbai (ITA No. 4960/Mum/2010 A.Y. 2006-06 order dated 22-07-2011) (ii) ACIT vs. Ashok Raj Nath(2012) 19 ITR 070 (Del. Tribunal) (iii) ITO vs. Patil Automobiles, 79 TTJ 359 (T.M.) Pune (iv) Dr. K.C. Baruah vs. ITO, (ITA No. 196 (Gau) of 1976-77 A.Y. 1972-73 order dated 28-09-1977) - Gauhati Tribunal. It is contended that the revised retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee fairly admits that similar penalties imposed in preceding years i.e. 2004-05 and 2005-06, their appeals are pending before ld. CIT(A) as they were subsequently imposed by the AO due to 148 proceedings. 2.9 I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessee filed the original return on 5-06-2006 which was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act by notice dtd. 21-06-2007. The ld. AR of the assessee could not reply to the query of the Bench as to what was the date of hearing fixed by notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. According to him, it was a routine notice. The revised return of income was filed on 16-10-207 i.e. after 04 months from the date of u/s 143(2) notice. ....