Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Sajjanraj Nahar [2006] 283 ITR 230, the head-notes are as under:

I.T.A. Nos Nos.158 to 164/Mds/10 "Penalty - concealment of income - satisfaction of Assessing Officer that there has been concealment of income - Indication in assessment order sufficient - Acceptance of revised return - Not a bar to initiation of penalty proceedings - Finding by Tribunal that revised return was not bona fide- Imposition of penalty - valid - Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1(c)."

11.1 Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M.S. Mohammed Marzook (Late) and Another vs. ITO [2006] 283 ITR 254 (Mad),while considering the case of K. P. Madhusudhudhnan,251ITR 99, has held as under:

"Penalty - concealment of income - revised return filed after search proceedings - finding by Tribunal that there had been concealment of income - levy of penalty valid - Income-Tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c).

Held, that the Tribunal on the facts of the case, found that the omission or wrong statement by the assessee in the original return was not bona fide or due to any inadvertence or mistake on his part, but the revised return was filed only after the search action. The levy of penalty was valid."

12. From the ratio of above noted decisions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the assessee in these case has not filed valid revised return as envisaged under section 139(5) nor could it establish its bonafide about filing of the so-called revised returns as the returns have been filed after detection on survey of the suppressed material/ purchases. Therefore, the assessee cannot take any help from such returns. Since concealment penalty is also imposable on the estimated income, as held by Apex Court as well Jurisdictional High Court when on facts, it does not get established that income has been assessed on estimated basis, so the plea of the assessee in this regard is also untenable. Further, the assessee could not be able to explain or establish as to why it could not disclose the correct income earlier before its detection and was also unable to show its bonafides for not disclosing correct income, hence, it had failed to establish its bonafide for not having furnished all the facts and material to the computation of its income and there is vast difference between income declared and income assessed, therefore, in our considered view, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted in this case for both the years.