TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en a non-taxable amount has been offered for assessment even before issue of notice under section 148, due to the inability of the assessee to adduce proof, penalty could be levied by the Assessing Officer without recording any satisfaction and establishing mens rea that the amount offered is taxable income? 2. Whether the ratio in the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 and CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC) would apply to this case which is before the amendment/introduction of Explanation 1 clause (B) to section 271(1)(c)? 3. Whether, on the circumstances of the case, when the entirety of the circumstances do not point to reasonable conclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to the assessment years, the assessee filed revised returns before the issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer, but the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that the assessee filed revised returns only after the search that took place at the premises of the assessee on September 21, 1989. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on appeal, set aside the penalty, but the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the department appeal. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the above appeals have been preferred by the wife/legal heir of the deceased assessee, namely, M. Sulaiha Beevi. The said M. Sulaiha Beevi is reported dead....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot avoid the applicability of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. This court also held that the provision for penalty would be attracted if there had been a deliberate concealment of particulars in any return, and when the original return did not disclose considerable portions of the income, there would be deliberate concealment. This court further held that where the omission is deliberate, the results of such deliberate omission cannot be got rid of by merely filing a revised return. This court, in the abovesaid judgment, after referring to the decision of this court in Sivagaminatha Moopanar and Sons v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 591, wherein the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Arunachalam Chettyar (A. Rm. A. L.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd actual concealment at the beginning, the attempt having been frustrated by other causes. It cannot, therefore, be held that wherever particulars are given before the actual assessment, there would be no concealment ... It follows that, if the assessee, at the time of submitting the original return intended to conceal a part of his income or deliberately gave false particulars at that time, the mere fact that he subsequently rectified the omission by giving the full particulars would not avoid the applicability of section 28(1)(c)." Referring to the decision of the Gauhati High Court in F.C. Agarwal v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 408, this court held as under: "... to avoid the penalty proceeding as contemplated under section 271(1)(c) by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vied with reference to the concealed income, since the reason for not having disclosed the income earlier was not stated. In the instant case, the assessee filed the revised return only after the search was conducted in the premises of the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal, on the facts of the case, found that the omission or wrong statement by the assessee in the original return was not due to any bona fide or inadvertence or mistake on his part, but the revised return was filed only after the search action. Though it is the case of the assessee that with a view to purchase peace he offered the sums as non-taxable income, the Appellate Tribunal held that there is no material with the assessee to show that the mistake had crept in the ori....