TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 60
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her the said finding can be regarded as "casual remarks" made by the Assessing Officer? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the appellant was liable to levy of penalty on the disclosed income is borne out of record and contrary to evidence?" 2. The Assessment Years in question are 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. The respective accounting periods are years ended on 30.06.1984, 30.06.1985 and 30.06.1987. The assessee, a Private Limited Company was assessed on total income of Rs. 34,75,190/- on 28.5.1986 under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 1985-86. Similarly, the assessment was completed on 3.6.1987 at a total income of Rs.56,14,730/- for Assessment Year 1986-87. For Assessment Year 1987-88 the assessment was completed on 1.3.1988 computing the total income at a sum of Rs.46,10,500/-. Subsequently, for Assessment Year 1985-86 a revised return of income was filed on 14.2.1989 disclosing additional income of Rs.54,71,463/-. For each of the two subsequent years viz. Assessment Years 1986-87 and 1987-88, revised returns were also filed on 14.2.1989 disclosing additional income of Rs.18 lac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary in nature and the assessee was under a bona fide impression that no penalty proceedings would be initiated considering the fact that the assessee had made an application under section 273A of the Act before filing the revised returns. It was further submitted that Revenue was not in possession of any concrete evidence against the assessee to establish concealment of any income. Various purchases made by the petitioner from International Steel Corporation, Shreeji Corporation, Narendra Brothers and Navnit Pipe and Steel Traders were all genuine purchases but the assessee chose to declare the value of such purchases as income only to avoid long drawn litigation considering the fact that the stand of the first supplier, viz. International Steel Corporation was inconsistent, the second supplier Shreeji Corporation was not traceable, that Narendra Brothers and Navnit Pipe and Steel Traders had in fact confirmed the sales made to the assessee but the Assessing Officer had come to the conclusion that their respective purchases were from Shreeji Corporation and hence, the said purchases made by the assessee were also not believable. In the circumstances, it was contended that no case f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by merely stating that all the arguments advanced by the assessee's Counsel had been noted without actually dealing with the grievance of the assessee that the alternative contention was not considered and not dealt with. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that in light of principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 151 the matter was required to be restored to the file of the Tribunal without entering into the merits of the controversy. 5.4. In support of various submissions made, the learned Counsel placed reliance on following decisions : [1] CIT Vs. Manibhai And Bros. [2007] 294 ITR 501 (Guj) [2] CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC). [3] CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2000) 241 ITR 124 (MP). [4] K.C.Builders And Another Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC). 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department submitted that no error had been committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant any other view of the matter. That the conduct of the assessee in repeatedly revising its return of income for Assessment Year 1985-86 was also required t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid purchases did not appear to be genuine. The statement of Chairman and Managing Director of assessee Company was recorded on 21.9.1988. Before the said proceedings could be finally concluded the assessee filed a declaration under section 273A of the Act disclosing additional income of Rs.54,71,463/- as being relatable to Assessment Year 1985-86. On the same day, declaration was also made of a sum of Rs. 18 lacs each for Assessment Years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. This application under section 273A of the Act was followed by revised returns filed on 14.2.1989 for all the three Assessment Years declaring identical additional income in the revised returns. Before assessments could be finalised, after regularising the same by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee came forward with another application declaring additional income of Rs.78,56,613/-. The first declaration was in relation to purchases from one M/s. International Steel Corporation while the second disclosure was in relation to purchases made from Shreeji Corporation, Narendra Brothers and Navnit Pipe And Steel Traders. Though it is contended by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch came about as a consequence of follow-up proceedings undertaken by DDIT, Surat in relation to other three suppliers viz. Shreeji Corporation, Narendra Brothers and Navnit Pipe And Steel Traders. Therefore, the assessee cannot be stated to have voluntarily come forward to disclose income which had unintentionally been omitted from the original return of income. 9. The law on the subject of treating a revised return of income as voluntary or otherwise is well settled. Merely because a return is revised that fact by itself cannot lead to any presumption as to concealment in the original return of income, because legislature itself has provided for furnishing a revised return in case of any omission in the original return. Albeit such omission has to be inadvertent and bonafide. If the omission is intentional the revised return cannot absolve an assessee. The fact that the department has initiated certain inquiries per-se would not be sufficient to treat the revised return as not being voluntary. This would depend on facts of each case considering the stage at which the investigation has progressed, the subject matter of investigation by the department, and the evidence available....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the same, and therefore it is not possible to accept the contention that nothing adverse had been observed by the Assessing Officer. The said finding has to be appreciated in the context of the fact that the declaration made by the assessee on 20.10.1988 in relation to the first Assessment Year viz. 1985-86 was in exact figures being sum of Rs.54,71,463/-, whereas for the subsequent three assessment years the declaration was in round figures of Rs.18 lacs each. This is also reflected by the figures incorporated in the revised returns for all the three assessment years filed on 14.2.1989. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer observed that nothing specific was found by the Assessing Officer, the same had to be appreciated in the context of the fact that nothing more than what was declared was found when the assessment was framed. The assessee therefore cannot succeed on this count also. 13. The submission on behalf of the assessee that the alternative plea was not considered by the Tribunal when the Appeals were decided and the Misc. Application moved by the assessee was rejected without assigning reasons need not be considered. Admittedly, the Reference Applications were mo....