THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3) Vs. SILK CITY PETROFILES COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-152
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 19,2016

The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3) Appellant
VERSUS
Silk City Petrofiles Company Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KS JHAVERI - (1.) By way of these Appeals, the Appellant ­ Department has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.03.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'D' in ITA No.2467/Ahd./2004 and ITA No.117/Ahd./2006.
(2.) While admitting the matters on 14.12.2007, the following substantial questions of law were framed by the Court for consideration : - "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Tribunal is right in deleting penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income -tax Act -
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant - ­ Department has submitted that the issue raised in these Appeals is governed by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income -tax (Asstt.) Spl. Range -2 reported in [2011] 330 ITR 93 (Gujarat), where it has been held that whether merely because a return is revised, that fact, by itself, cannot lead to any presumption as to concealment in original return of income, because Legislature itself has provided for furnishing a revised return in case of any omission in original return, albeit such omission has to be inadvertent and bonafide. It was further held that in the facts of the case that after original assessments of assessee for relevant assessment years had been completed, a survey was conducted upon it and on verification certain purchases made by it did not appear to be genuine. Before said proceedings could be finally concluded, the assessee filed revised return for all three assessment years disclosing additional income in relation to purchases made from certain parties. The Assessing Officer by issuing notice under Section 148, regularized the said returns and completed reassessment for said years and also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon the assessee. It is further contended that the view taken by the CIT (Appeals) is required to be reversed and the view taken by the Assessing Officer is required to be confirmed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.