1984 (11) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rn of income has been filed which has not revealed the entire taxable income. These returns have been filed before the amendment of 1968. However, in some cases a revised return and in some cases a return consequent to reopening of the assessment under ss. 147 and 148 of the Act has been filed after the amendment became operative. In these cases, a question has arisen as to whether the penalty should be imposed on the basis of the first return or on the basis of the second return. Some judgments have taken the view that it is the last return which has to be seen because the concealment is also present in the last return. On the other hand, other judgments have taken the view that the concealment took place in the first return and hence, it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 1976, decided on May 29, 1984-[1985] 156 ITR 70 (Delhi)], the question was whether the date of the concealment was the date of the original return or the date of the revised return. The revision of the return in that case was about certain other particulars, so the Tribunal had held that filing of the revised return made no difference and the actual concealment was on the date of the original return. This view was upheld on the findings of the Tribunal. These are three judgments of this court. Mr. Wadhera has referred to the judgments of some other High Court where a different view has been taken. But, at the same time, it appears that the preponderance of judgments take the view that the concealment is to be based on the original retu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The return in response to the notice under s. 148 was filed on May 25, 1970, and showed the income as Rs. 5,95.0. As both these returns were filed after 1968, the penalty was imposed by the ITO on the application of the amendment. But, the Tribunal was of the view that the penalty had to be imposed according to the law applicable when the original concealment took place that is, in accordance with the judgment in Sucha Singh Anand's case [1984] 149 ITR 143 (Delhi) aforementioned. It is necessary to emphasise the fact that Shrimathi Waryam Kaur was assessed for the same income on the basis that the Department discovered that she had constructed a house at Ghaziabad. That assessment was made on April 30, 1966. So, the Department was fully a....