TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subject matter of this TCA is 2010-2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said assessment year' for the sake of clarity and convenience). 2(b) The Assessee, who is an individual filed her return of income for the said assessment year on 25.9.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 89,69,894/-. Subsequently, the Assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2012 admitting a total income of Rs. 4,41,40,950/-. As is evident from the numbers, the difference between the income originally declared on 25.9.2010 and the total income admitted in the revised return filed on 30.03.2012 is Rs. 3,51,71,053/-. It is not in dispute before us that this entire differential sum is the advance received by the Assessee in the said assessment year from various cinema producers towards the work to be done by her. In the original return filed, the advances received by the assessee had not been shown as income in the said assessment year, though the same have been set out in the balance sheet filed by her with the Revenue. This 'advance not being shown as income in the same assessment year' issue is the first aspect of the matter. 2(c) Thereafter an assessment order was made by the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by way of an order dated 6.9.2016 confirmed the order of CIT. 2(g) Both CIT and ITAT, on facts and on scrutiny of documents and a detailed / thorough enquiry touching upon various factual aspects, came to the conclusion with regard to disallowance qua TDS that the same was an inadvertent error on the part of the accountant. With regard to the issue relating to advances not being shown as income in the same / said assessment year, both the CIT and ITAT, concurrently, held that there is no deliberate suppression or concealment of income on the part of Assessee, as the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that advances received need not be shown as income in the same / said assessment year. We shall discuss more about this under the caption 'discussion' infra in this judgment. 2(h) With regard to this caption 'Factual Matrix', to complete the facts, it would suffice to note that the instant TCA before us has been filed by the Revenue assailing the above said order of the ITAT dated 6.9.2016. 3 DISCUSSION : 3(a) As would be evident from the factual matrix supra, the only issue that falls our consideration in the instant TCA is whether the Assessee is liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel for the Assessee would point out, is in the balance sheet that was annexed to the Return (even the original return filed before the revised return) clearly shows the advance which the Assessee has received and therefore, there is no intention at all on the part of the Assessee to conceal. The learned counsel for the Assessee would further submit that the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that it is not necessary to show the advances received in the said assessment year as income as she may have to return the advances received, if ultimately she is not able to perform her work for one reason or the other. However, as stated supra, in the light of the order of the CIT in the previous assessment years, the Assessee decided to file the revised return and showed the advances as income in the same assessment year, i.e., the said assessment year. 3(g) This submission on behalf of the Assessee that advances received were shown in the balance sheet even with the original return and therefore, there is no intention to conceal, much less intention to conceal deliberately finds favour with us. However, we proceed to discuss the matter further. 3(h) Learned counsel for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o service this judgment, the Revenue would contend that meaning of the words 'Omission' and 'Discover', as occurring in Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, have to be read in the light of the ratio in J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar's case. We find that the ratio in J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar's case runs as follows : "In our opinion, section 139(5) will apply only to a limited category of cases, namely, where in the original return there was any omission or any wrong statement. The very word " omission " connotes an unintentional act. Equally, the words "wrong statement" will not take in "a statement known to be false to the person who made the Statement." However, the word "discovers" occurring in Section 139(5) will make it clear that at the time of discovery only, a person who has furnished a return finds out that an inadvertent omission or an unintended wrong statement had crept in the return filed by him. If a person who furnished the return was aware of the falsity of the statement and the incorrectness of the particulars of income even at the time when he filed the original return, there was no question of that person subsequently discover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the proposed / substantial questions of law, on which the Revenue wanted this TCA to be admitted. Questions, which according to the Revenue are substantial questions of law as proposed by the Revenue, in the instant TCA, read as follows : "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that additional income declared by the assessee by filing revised return consequent to notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) does not attract penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961? 2.Whether the Tribunal is right in law in treating the revised return filed by the assessee as a valid return and holding that the same was filed to avoid confrontation with the Revenue and thereby coming to the conclusion that the additional income declared therein does not form a basis for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas, the original return filed by the assessee has no omission so as to treat the revised return as a valid one? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the admission made by the assessee in the revised return offering higher amount of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of law. Relevant paragraph reads as follows : "24.The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 100 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case. In Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222 (FB)] : (Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] , SCR p. 557) "When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a substantial question of law." This Court la....