TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (9) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revised return was filed on December 21,1968. In the original return the income disclosed was Rs. 10,667, whereas in the revised return the income shown was Rs. 29,285. The assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 42,848. 1966-67 : The original return was filed on April 29, 1966. The revised return was filed on January 12, 1968. In the original return the income shown by the assessee was Rs. 35.251. This was, however, enhanced to Rs. 38,850 in the revised return. The assessment was completed on an income of Rs. 40,270. 1967-68 : The original return was filed on September 14, 1967. The revised return was filed on January 23, 1968. In the original return the assessee showed the total income at Rs. 28,020.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, held that penalty had to be imposed on the assessee on the basis of the figures given in the revised returns. In other words, the view of the Tribunal was that penalty could not be imposed with reference to the original returns. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an application under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As the Tribunal was satisfied that a question of law arose for decision in the aforesaid three cases, it solicited the opinion of the High Court on the following question : " Whether, after the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return, under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty is imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the basis that the assessee furnished inac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what has been said above, it would be found that the benefit of this provision cannot be claimed by a person who has filed a false return knowing it to be false. For filing a revised return under s. 139(5), it is essential that an assessee must not be guilty of deliberate concealment of particulars. In Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT [1977] ITR 419, a Division Bench of this court held that a revised return can be filed only when a person discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. It cannot cover a case where the omission or a wrong statement contained in the first return was deliberate. It is clear from the said case that if an assesses deliberately omitted particulars of his income or made wrong statement in the original return, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....templated by s. 271(1)(c) by reason of the revised return, the revised return itself must fulfil the prerequisites of sub-s. (5) of s. 139. In other words, it must fall within the ambit of that provision. If it cannot be said that an assessee was justified in filing a revised return, then the assessee will not be entitled to get the revised return to be taken into consideration for the purpose of imposition of penalty. A revised return may supplant the original return or replace and substitute it, provided that the provisions of s. 139(5) were fulfilled. In Amjad Ali's case [1977] 110 ITR 419, this court held that a revised return will supplant the original return provided there was no concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate p....