1978 (7) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the following three questions for opinion : " 1. Whether under section 17 of the Act, it is deliberate and conscious attempt at concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars which is liable to penalty or the penalty can be levied even in respect of accidental or clerical mistakes ? 2. Whether the assessee is absolved of the default contemplated by section 17, if he filed a revised r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Ziledars. The amount involved was Rs. 44,000. Similar discrepancies were there in respect of other revenue collections. On October 25, 1951, a notice was received by the assessee for enhancement. Thereafter, an application was moved on October 27, 1951, for permission to file a revised return. This appears to have been allowed,. and on November 7, 1951, a revised return was filed by the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....conceal his income. He held that the mistakes in the return were due to clerical error. On a revision being filed by the State, the Board of Revenue, taking the view that as the assessee had applied for correction of the return only after he received notice for enhancement, the filing of the revised return did not salvage the position of the assessee. It held that as the original return filed did ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessee may become liable for penalty. See CIT v. Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696 (SC). In the case of Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 419 (All), it has been held that the fact that a discrepancy in the return has been pointed out by the assessing authority is not conclusive of the matter unless it is established that the error was on account of the conscious act of the assessee. In the ....