RASIKLAL J AND CO Vs. MISHRA G K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a dissolved partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the two orders passed by the Commissioner of Income -tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay (both dated August 18, 1987), under sections 264 and 273A of the Income -tax Act.

(2.) THE assessment of the petitioner -company for the assessment year 1983 -84 was completed on February 1, 1985. The petitioner, it is stated, had filed its return originally on November 2, 1983. It filed revised return on July 16, 1984. In the revised turn, an additional income of Rs. 3,16,000 was shown. Being of the view that the penal provision of section 271(1)(c) were attracted, the Income -tax Officer recorded a finding to the effect and, after allowing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard imposed, by order dated December 11, 1985, a penalty of Rs. 3,12,840 under section 271(1)(c), being 150% of the amount of tax sought to be evade. The petition did not file any appeal against the order. Instead, it filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income -tax under section 264 of the Act. It also made an application before the Commissioner under section 273A for reduction or waiver of penalty so imposed by the Income -tax officer. By the impugned orders both dated August 18, 1987, the Commissioner rejected the petitioner's revision petition under section 264 as well as the application under section 273A of the Income -tax Act.

(3.) FAIRLY admitting that the petitioner had not disclosed the said amount of Rs. 3,16,000 as its income in the first return filed for the assessment year 1983 -84 on November 2, 1983, Shri Trivedi stated that that was due to a sheer mistake and that a revised return was filed by the petitioner on July 16, 1984, as soon as the mistake was realised. However, the revised return, it was stated, was filed long before the assessment was taken up by the Income -tax Officer. The submission, thus, is that it is a case of a bona fide mistake. In any event, the correct return was filed before the assessment was taken up by the Income -tax Officer and, therefore, the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.