COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. JUGALKISHORE HARGOPAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to a direction given by this court in O. P. No. 17983 of 1993, the following question has been referred under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench (in short "the Tribunal"), for opinion of this court :

(2.) THE factual position as indicated in the statement of case is as follows : Originally, the assessee had filed a return of income for the concerned assessment year, i.e., 1981-82, declaring a total income of Rs. 23,560 on October 10, 1981, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(1) on January 25, 1984. On January 28, 1986, there was a search in the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. On December 8, 1987, the assessee filed a return showing a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as income under the head "Other sources", in addition to the income already assessed. As there was no scope for filing a revised return after completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer ignored the return but nevertheless issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act. A return was filed in response to it. In the reassessment there was an addition to the extent of Rs. 1,03,250 as against Rs. 1,00,000 returned by the assessee as "income from other sources". THE Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. THE assessee submitted his explanation stating that since prior to the service of notice under Section 148, a revised return had been filed admitting an additional income of Rs. 1,00,000 and he had agreed to the addition of Rs. 1,03,250, there was no scope for initiation of penalty proceedings. THE Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation and levied penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Calicut (in short "the CIT (Appeals)"), affirmed the conclusions of the Assessing Officer. He held that the return which was filed offering additional income was not voluntary and the assessee was forced to admit the additional income in view of the detection of the deposits by the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1982-83, and even if the return was filed voluntarily, as claimed, that did not absolve the assessee of the liability to penalty.

(3.) SENIOR standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and the factual aspects have not been appreciated in the proper perspective. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that on analysing the factual position, the Tribunal has arrived at its conclusion and, therefore, no question of law arises.