TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Officer started investigation on receipt of the return and called for various details and particulars from the petitioner by his letter, exhibit R-1(a), dated December 1, 1986. While the proceedings were thus going on, the petitioner purported to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme of 1985 and filed a revised return disclosing a total income of Rs. 8,39,810 for the year. That was on March 12, 1987. The Income-tax Officer was not, however, satisfied with this return as he was of opinion that the petitioner had disclosed a lesser value for the arrack sold by it during this year than in the previous year, and for other reasons. He made addition to the total income returned, besides disallowing certain items of expenditure claimed. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner by the order, exhibit P-8, dated February 15, 1989. The petitions were dismissed. The Commissioner stated: "The assessee's argument cannot be accepted for several reasons. Though the assessee filed its original return itself on March 31, 1986, when the Amnesty Scheme was in force, it did not choose to disclose its full income and it filed a revised return on March 12, 1987, only after the Income-tax Officer made enquiries. Actually, the Income-tax Officer did not accept even this revised return under section 143(1) as is normally done in the Amnesty Scheme. Instead, he made further enquiries and made an order under section 143(3) enhancing the total income to a much higher figure of Rs. 15,58,080. Even the Commissioner of Income-tax (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpted by the investigation that was going on and was made almost on the eve of completion of the assessment, namely, on March 12, 1987, the date of assessment being April 1, 1987. The return so filed was neither true nor complete as evident from the enhancement of the taxable income by Rs. 50,000 even as per the appellate order, which the petitioner accepted and did not challenge in further appeal. The revised return was thus not a true return and, therefore, the petitioner became disentitled to the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. I am in agreement with the reasoning of the Commissioner on this point in the order, exhibit P-8. The Commissioner was, therefore, justified in dismissing the revision petitions, exhibits P-6 and P-7. I must also....