- (1.) AT the instance of the CIT, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :-- "Whether after the Assessee voluntarily filed a revised return under S. 139 of the IT Act, 1961, penalty is imposable under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis that the Assessee furnished inaccurate particulars in the original return"?
(2.) THE relevant years in respect of which this question has been referred, are the asst. yrs. 1965- 66 to 1967-68. The assessee is a partner in the two firms called Radhey Shyam Babu Ram and Radhey Shyam Baijnath Prasad. The Assessee filed a return for the year 1965-66 on 13th Oct., 1965. He thereafter filed a revised return in respect of this year on 21st Dec., 1968. In this revised return, the net income shown by the Assessee was more than what was previously indicated in the original return filed on 13th Oct., 1965. The same thing happened with respect to the asst. yrs. 1966-67 to 1976-68. The original return for the year 1966-67 was filed on 29th April, 1966, showing an income which was less than what was subsequently shown in the revised return filed on 21st Dec., 1968. Similarly, for the asst. yr. 1967-68, the original return was filed on 14th Sept., 1967. This was, however, subsequently revised on 23rd Jan., 1968. The ITO, having found that the Assessee was guilty of concealment, initiated penalty proceedings under S. 271(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Similar penalty proceedings were started in respect of all the three years. He referred the matter to the IAC as the amount of penalty was likely to exceed Rs. 1,000 under S. 274 of the IT Act, 1961. The IAC thereafter found that the Assessee was guilty of concealment and imposed penalty in respect of all the three years. In doing so, he took into account the fact that the figures shown in the original returns were much less than those subsequently mentioned by the Assessee himself in the revised returns. Aggrieved by the judgment of the IAC, the Assessee preferred three appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal differed with the view taken by the IAC and having found the purposes of imposing penalty on the Assessee, held that penalty leviable in respect of the asst. yr. 1966-67 to 1967-68 could not be more than the minimum, i.e., Rs. 1,000. It was thereupon that the CIT filed an application under sub-s. (1) of S. 256 before the Tribunal for making a reference of the aforesaid question, as in the opinion of the Tribunal, the question sought to be referred was one of law. The application filed by the Department was rejected. Thereafter on an application being filed under sub-s. (2) of S. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was directed to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the question referred to above.
(3.) THE question that arises for determination in this case is whether the penalty was imposable under S. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of the revised returns filed by the Assessee or on the original ones. This question has been the subject-matter of decision by this Court in a number of cases. The first decision is reported in CIT vs. Data Ram Satpal, (1975) 99 ITR 507 (All). It was subsequently followed in CIT vs. Ram Achal Ram Sewak, (1977) 106 ITR 144 (All). The views taken by the Bench was that the relevant return for the purposes of S. 271 was the return filed originally and not any return filed subsequent thereto. This view was reiterated by following the same in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Krishna Subha karan, (1977) 108 ITR 271.;