ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RADHEY SHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter relates to the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. Radhey Shyam, the assessee, is a partner in two firms, viz., M/s. Radhey Shyam Babu Ram and M/s. Radhey Shyam Baijnath Prasad. THE details of the returns filed for these three years by the assessee are as follows :

(2.) AS the ITO was of the opinion that the assessee had concealed the income in the aforesaid three years, and since the minimum penalty leviable was found to be more than Rs. 1,000, he referred the matter of imposition of penalty on the assessee to the IAC. The assessee contended before the IAC that the filing of revised returns, surrendering the cash credits, was purely voluntary, hence there was no concealment of income. The IAC held that the revised returns were filed by the assessee only when the ITO had suspected the concealment. In this view, the IAC levied penalties of Rs. 6,420, Rs. 5,590 and Rs. 11,160 for these three years.

(3.) THE main question that arises for decision in this case is whether the filing of the revised returns under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the I.T. Act was justified. If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the affirmative, the penalty would be imposable on the assessee with reference to the second or revised returns. But, if the answer is in the negative, penalty had to be imposed on the basis of original returns. At this place, it would be convenient to reproduce Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the I.T. Act, which deals with the filing of the revised returns. It reads: