TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-92 along with notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Assessing Officer had issued questionnaire calling for certain details. Reply was filed on March 2, 1992. Thereafter the appellants filed revised returns for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1991-92 and paid tax accordingly. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax while accepting the income declared in the revised returns, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellants filed reply dated April 27, 1993, submitting that the additional income had been disclosed voluntarily to get the benefit under section 273A of the Act as per the Budget Speech in 1991-92. However, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in the revised returns?" Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as applicable on the relevant date is to the following effect: "271. (1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - . . (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - . . . (iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than, but which shall not exceed twice, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Assistant Commissioner had primarily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705. It has been observed in the subsequent Supreme Court decision reported in K.P. Madhusudhanan v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 that by virtue of the Explanation to section 271, which was added after the aforesaid decision was rendered, the view taken in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. In the present case, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that much before the revised returns were filed by the appellants, the questionnaire had been issued by the Income-tax Officer calling for certain details and the a....