– YES: HC

– Assessee’s appeal dismissed: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Whether assessee can be charged with deliberate concealment and deserves levy of penalty, if he did not file any revised return to correct the omissions made by him even after notices being served u/s 143(2) – YES: HC

++ it is an admitted case of the assessee that Rs.12.24 lacs and Rs.52.24 lacs which were shown in the profit and loss account and under the head of other expenditures and which were included by AO in computing the business income of assesse were liable to be assessed for tax. It is also apparent that the assessee had paid an advance tax of Rs.12.24 lacs and had debited the said amount under ‘other expenditure’. Rs.52.24 lacs was debited in P&L A/c as loss from sale of or dealing with non-banking business even though the said amount was not an expense but an appropriation of profit. It is also evident that even after notice was issued to the assessee u/s 143(2), the assessee did not file any revised return to correct the omissions. The contention of assesee was that the error in its return was because the assessee was excluded from the purview of Section 80-P w.e.f. April 01, 2007 and the assessee had been claiming benefit of Section 80-P in the previous assessment years. The said explanation cannot be accepted in view of the particulars given in the return filed by the assessee. A perusal of the return filed by assessee shows that the assessee had disclosed his gross total income as Rs.20,16,002.20/- and did not claim any deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 80-P is a part of Chapter VI-A. It is also pertinent to note that u/s 80-B(5), the gross total income means the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before making any deductions under Chapter VI-A. Evidently, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had also concealed the particulars of his income which were deliberate and intentional. The Tribunal or the appellate authority committed no error or illegality in not accepting the plea of assessee that the mistake in filing its return was bona fide and because of the amendment in the Finance Act, 2006 excluding the assessee from the purview of Section 80-P;

++ the next contention of the assessee that the mistake in filing the return occurred because the assessee lacked the services of professional chartered accountants can also not be accepted in as much as u/s 44-AB, the assessee was required to get its account audited by an accountant as defined u/s 288(2)-Explanation. It is not a case where the assessee has claimed deductions under any head which had been disallowed by the Revenue but is a case where the assessee had concealed its total taxable income and furnished inaccurate details in its return. The assessee was not able to establish his bonafides regarding the inaccurate particulars furnished in his return. For the said reasons, the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were rightly initiated against the assessee and the penalty was also rightly imposed on him.