2006 (7) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d filed a return on November 25, 1999, for the assessment year 1999-2000 declaring an income of Rs. 7,40,510/-. Not satisfied therewith, the Assessing Officer carried out a survey under section 133A of the Act and during the survey found that there was a discrepancy in stock to the tune of Rs. 18,28,706/- which was brought to the notice of the assessee and the assessee filed a revised return disclosing additional income of Rs. 18,28,706/-, and the Assessing Officer found that the said income was suppressed by the assessee but the said revised return was finalised but at the same time a notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to impose penalty was issued to the assessee and which was disposed of by order dated May 25, 2001, and a penalty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the fact of the earlier mala fide (sic-dishonest) return and that the assessee had furnished wrong particulars of the stock with a view to suppress the income and, therefore, was liable to be penalised and thus the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the minimum penalty in view of the subsequent conduct of the assessee filing another return and paying the due tax. 5. At the time of admission, Mr. S. V. Pikale, learned counsel on behalf of the assessee, has submitted that the assessee was entitled to file a revised return in terms of section 139(5) of the Act at any time as prescribed therein and having filed the same and the Assessing Officer having accepted the same there was no room to levy any penalty. 6. Reliance has been p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shing inaccurate particulars and mere omission from the return of the item of receipt amounts neither to concealment nor deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless and until there is some evidence to show or some circumstances are found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable to an intention or desire on the part of the assessee to hide or conceal the income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 599, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reiterated the view that mens rea is an important factor in relation to concealment of income. That was a case where there was non-disclosure of certain profits due to mistake and, therefore, it was held ....