TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (2) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lies to the facts of the case ? and (iii) Whether the penalty proceeding is not barred by limitation ? " The petitioner is a partnership firm. For the year 1983-84, the petitioner submitted a return on April 28, 1984, disclosing a total income of Rs. 2,74,510. The Income-tax Officer wrote to the assessee pointing out certain cash credits and other credit balances not accounted for and, therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish evidence to prove the source of the said credits. The assessee then filed a return on December 22, 1984, which, according to the assessee, was to purchase peace. The assessment order was passed by the Income-tax Officer, accepting the return; on December 28, 1984, on a total income of Rs. 5,24,510 which inclu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncealment of income in a given case is purely a question of fact and, therefore, no referable questions of law arose from the appellate order. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed this original petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for reference of the questions as questions of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. We heard counsel on behalf of the assessee as well as on behalf of the Revenue. The main question canvassed on behalf of the assessee is that Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) will not apply to the facts of the case. It was submitted that there was no concealment of income as the assessee filed a revised return for 1983-84 enhancing the income by Rs. 2,50,000 on December 22, 1984. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncealment. Therefore, the return filed" so, as to include the concealed income, cannot be characterised as a revised return within the meaning of section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. It cannot be stated that the return was filed when the assessee discovered any omission or any wrong statement in the original return. In short, a return filed so as to include concealed income cannot be treated as a revised return at all. The return, in fact, is an admission of concealed income masquerading as a revised return. The Tribunal also found that the so-called revised return was not filed voluntarily before the concealment was detected. As stated by the Tribunal, the entire move of the assessee was to file revised return disclosing a higher inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income-tax Officer clearly found that it is an income concealed. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also found that Explanation 2 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act squarely applies to, the facts of the case as the assessee had credited the accounts of the partners with a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 in the subsequent year. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the sum represented the additional income of the appellant in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 which had not been disclosed in the return filed on April 28, 1984. The Appellate Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. The Tribunal found that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was found credited to the capital account of the partners and it furth....