Log In

| Recover password


Normally a revision of return is made for making claims for deductions or exemptions that were omitted to be made in the original return. In the case of CIT v. V Narashima Prasad (250ITR852) the premises of the assessee were surveyed by the revenue. The assessee having already filed the return at a very low income of the previous three years without wasting any time revised such returns and returned income at almost fifty (50) times the amount returned originally.

On the basis of such declaration only the assessing officer levied penalty for concealment on the ground that the revised returns were filed after the survey. The Tribunal held that merely because the return has been revised after the survey would not be sufficient to call for any penalty action under the Act. The Karnataka High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal.

On the other hand in the case of Vanaja Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (249ITR374) the assessee filed a return of income declaring a net income of Rs. 8,790 after claiming deduction of more than Rs. 1 crore for depreciation, investment allowance, etc. The assessee filed a revised return of income supposedly after the conduct of an enquiry by the revenue into the alleged huge deductions which otherwise were not available to him in that accounting year. It also claimed the benefit of the amnesty scheme.

The revenue claimed that after the return filed by the assessee the Revenue had conducted an enquiry and had knowledge about falsification of documents and claiming deduction of very huge amounts to which the assessee was not entitled in that accounting year. It was thus alleged by the revenue that the subsequent return filed by the assessee was not voluntary (key requirement of the section) after finding out the bona fide mistake committed by it. The assessee was denied the benefit under the amnesty scheme. The action on the part of the revenue was affirmed by thee Kerala High Court in this case.

Further the Nagpur High Court in the case of Waman Padmanabh Dande Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (22ITR339) held that where an assessee seeks permission to revise the return as originally filed after the assessee’s dishonesty has come to the notice of the Income-tax Officer a penalty for concealment can be imposed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error: Do not copy the content of this website.