WAMAN PADMANABH DANDE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under s. 66(1) of the IT Act referring the following question for the opinion of this Court :

(2.) AT the adjourned hearing on the 23rd March, 1948, the assessee made an application purporting to be under s. 22(3) of the Act seeking permission to revise the return. In this application, it was said that the return was prepared hurriedly and filed on the 24th Feb., 1948, as the ITO declined to grant time, that a profit of Rs. 2,793 -8 -0 on the sales of two plots remained to be shown in a hurry and that the profit should be ascertained in the next year as all the sales were not effected. It was contended that if the book profits were to be taxed, the book profits of Rs. 23,010 were offered for assessment. It is also stated in the application that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the profits arising from the purchase and sale of fields were not at all taxable.

(3.) THE Tribunal did not accept this plea of bona fide impression which could not be true in view of the fact that the assessee had returned income at the flat rate of 5 per cent. Although it is not stated in the application or the statement dt. 11th March, 1948, it was urged before the AAC that the true profits were not returned as the books were not ready. This contention was however not pressed before the Tribunal. Thus on the facts found by the Tribunal the submission of incorrect return was intentional and the return was sought to be corrected when the dishonesty was noticed by the ITO. Sec. 28(1)(c) provides :