Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned, courisel for the department invited our attention to another decision of this court in Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 419 (All). In our opinion, this case is distinguishable. There the principal controversy was whether the voluntary return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act could, in law, supplant a return filed under Section 139(1). The Bench held that it will depend upon the facts of the case. If omission or the wrong statements in the original return were deliberate, the revised return was not a valid return and hence could not supplant the original return for purposes of penalty. In that event, the original return alone could be looked into. But where the omission or the wrong statement in the original return was not deliberate, but the assessee subsequently discovers an error of which he was not cognizant earlier, the revised return is valid under Section 139(5). Such a return amends the original return. The original return stands amended or revised and in such circumstances the revised return is the only validly existing return which could be seen for purposes of imposing penalty. Since the revised return has supplanted the original return, the original return becomes redundant in so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned.