Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

as stated in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 153A. It was argued that even if section 139(5) is held applicable to an assessment to be made under section 153A, a revised return can be filed only if any omission or wrong statement in the return is discovered by the assessee and the revised return is to be filed within a period of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. In the present cases, the original returns were filed sometime in October 2006 and the revised returns were filed on 24.12.2007. The revised returns were therefore filed beyond the time and hence not valid. The judgment of the Supreme Court in G C Agarwal vs. CIT (1991) 186 ITR 571 (SC) was cited in support of the proposition. It was further argued that even if the addition is made on estimate, penalty can be imposed so long as concealment of income is established. In support of this contention, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (2007) 291 ITR 202 (Guj) and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vidya Sagar Oswal vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 861 (P&H) were cited.

15. In the alternative it was argued by the Department that even if the revised returns were validly filed, they were not filed voluntarily but were filed in the face of enquiries made by the Department and, therefore, they were not bona fide. In support of this submission the learned DR produced a file containing a notice issued on 06.11.2007 by the AO and it was submitted that this was an example of the enquiries launched by the Department and the revised returns filed on 24.12.2007 were prompted by the enquiries and hence were not bona fide. Support was sought to be derived from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K P Madhusudhanan vs. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC).

Thereafter the AO has held that the revised return was not valid. However, the revised return has been acted upon and the income declared therein has been taken for the purpose of computing the taxable income.

23. It may be seen from the above narration that no enquiry into the methods of calculating the additional income was seriously made by the AO. The declaration made before the search wing was first Rs.214.7 lakhs as per the statement of Mr Rajal N Ashar under section 132(4) of the Act. Thereafter declaration of Rs.2.50 crores was made which included Rs.1,79,88,269/- as additional income on account of local purchases. Again this was revised to Rs.2,68,34,154/- which included Rs.2,36,68,976/- as additional income on account of local purchases. Different calculations and workings of the additional income were submitted at different stages of the proceedings. Our attention was not drawn to any enquiry made into those calculations by the AO and it appears to us that he was satisfied so long as higher income was offered by the assessees. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the assessees that there is no precision or definiteness in the method or manner in which the additional income was offered at three different stages. The amount of Rs.214.7 lakhs represented the amount reflected in the ledger accounts of the eleven parties from whom local purchases were made. The disclosure of Rs.2.50 crores is based on a different method and the last disclosure of Rs.2.68 crores was made on yet another basis, taking the difference between the average sale rate and the average purchase rate, on the assumption that in order to offset the higher sale prices shown, the local unsupported purchases were shown at a higher price on average basis. All the workings are based on various assumptions and estimates. The turn of events starting from the search till the culmination of the assessment proceedings broadly indicates that the additional income was calculated only on estimates and the attempt was to somehow arrive at a mutually accepted figure of additional income.