COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAMESWAR AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, at Hyderabad under s. 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, (43 of 1961) ("the Act"), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, for the opinion of this court on the following question of law :

(2.) M/s. Rameswar andamp; Co., Zaheerabad, is a registered firm the assessee, constituted with fifteen partners. The assessee carried on the business of excise contracts and for the assessment year 1965-66, the accounting year of the firm ended on September 30, 1964. Two returns on September 30, 1965, were lodged for assessment year 1965-66, because of change in the constitution of the firm in that accounting year. One return related to the period for October, 1, 1963, to July 9, 1964, showing an income of Rs. 3,96,083, the other return related to the period from July 10, 1964, to September 30, 1964, showing the income to be Rs. 1,72,868. The firm again on January 2, 1970, revised the returns and lodged for the first period showing the income as Rs. 3,97,981, and on January 7, 1970, in another revised return for the second period the income was shown as Rs. 5,70,849. The ITO in the course of assessment proceedings detected a deficit of cash balance of Rs. 19,087. The assessee, thereupon, promptly lodged another, the fifth return, on January 31, 1970, including the sum of Rs. 19,087 and showed the income of the firm to be Rs. 5,89,936. The assessments were completed on March 30, 1970, holding the income to be Rs. 6,82,028. The AAC, on appeal, held the income to be Rs. 5,92,030.

(3.) THE question on the facts of the instant case, whether on the day when the original returns were filed by the assessee and again on the day when the revised returns were filed, "two offences" were committed by the assessee, does not arise in the instant case, for, the decision of the Tribunal on the facts of the cases is that there was one offence and the assessee is penalised only once for concealment. For the purpose of this case, the inference is accepted as a question of fact, as, otherwise, what should follow on such facts, we are not called upon to decide on the question. In N. A. Malbary and Bros. v. CIT was a case where, on the facts of the case, the High Court and the Supreme Court both held that there was one offence and in that context made a "friendly reference" in the case (p. 298) :