TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (6) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income-tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the difference in language between s. 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and s. 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mohamed Haneef [1972] 83 ITR 215, in deciding the assessee's case ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and had materials before it in holding that penalty is not leviable on the merits of the case, since the reassessment of the assessee's income for the assessment year 1970-71 was not the result of an independent investigation by the Income-tax Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income liable to be assessed. Inasmuch as the concealed income exceeded Rs. 25,000, the assessing authority in terms of s. 274 (as it then stood) referred the matter for further action to the IAC of Income-tax, Ernakulam Range. The IAC went into the question in detail and held that " the disclosure was made only after the conclusion of the original assessment proceedings and, hence, there was concealment of income in these proceedings, which attracts the provisions of s. 271(1)(c)". He accordingly, levied an amount of Rs. 50,000 as penalty. The assessee filed a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT v. Mahim [1984] 149 ITR 737 of this court. We are of the view that the said decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. In the said decision, this court was considering the question whether a revised return showing the correct income filed under s. 139(5) of the Act voluntarily would exonerate an assessee from the penal consequences envisaged under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, admittedly, the return was filed pursuant to the notice under s. 148 of the Act. It was not a return filed under s. 139(5) of the Act. A return filed pursuant to a notice under s. 148 cannot be treated on a par or compared with a revised return filed under s. 139(5) of the Act. For that matter it is not the case either of the assessee or of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 271(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 1964. The said Explanation reads: " Explanation.-Where the total income returned by any person is less than eighty per cent of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income fo....