COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BHAVINKUMAR M. DAGLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has preferred the present appeal on the following question of law:

(2.) THE facts are that initially, the return was filed by the assessee for the assessment year of 2005 -06 on March 27, 2006, for the taxable income of Rs. 5,52,179. Later on, assessee filed revised return as on March 31, 2006, (which is stated by Mr. Bhatt for the appellant that the correct date should have been March 31, 2007) showing total income of Rs. 4,44,82,930. There was scrutiny and ultimately, vide order dated December 24, 2007, the income was assessed of Rs. 4,81,14,680. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), wherein on the question of penalty, the matter was relegated to the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated March 29, 2010, found that 100 per cent penalty of the tax amount deserves to be imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and, hence, imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,66,230. In appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), it was found by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) that before finalisation of the assessment, the assessee had filed the letter on October 2, 2006, with the Income -tax Officer, Ward 1(4) on October 3, 2006, explaining that he had received certain money from different persons in the bank account in his name and that the said persons were not co -operating and, therefore, the appellant was advised to offer to tax income based on such bank account transactions by filing the revised return. It was also recorded that the letter was inwarded, vide register No. 81 in the office of Income -tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Bhavnagar, on October 3, 2006. The contention of the Assessing Officer was considered by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) that no such letter was found. The Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals), thereafter, found that there is no justification in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, deleted the same. In the further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal observed at paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as under:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Revenue attempted to contend that the second return which was titled as revised return was after the outer limit and, therefore, it was no revised return in the eye of law and if such factor is considered, it can be said that there was concealment of income on the part of the assessee coupled with the aspect that after the scrutiny notice was issued, the so -called revised return was filed and, therefore, he submitted that the approach of the Tribunal deserves to be further considered in the light of the question raised by the Revenue in the present appeal.