Dharampal R. Pandia v. Dy. CIT (2021) 435 ITR 301 / 202 DTR 356 / 321 CTR 341 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to file return-Deemed concealment-Survey-Returns filed after receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act-Explanation 3 is satisfied-Levy of penalty is justified. [S. 133A, 148, 153, 274]

Held that the filing of returns was subsequent to the issue of notice under section 148 after the survey under section 133A, subsequent to which the audit of accounts was completed and the consequent returns were filed. The assessee could not take shelter in the contention that the words “who has not previously been assessed under this Act” which were a part of Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) prior to April 1, 2003 and were omitted thereafter, stating that he was an existing assessee even prior to the amendment and therefore the amended Explanation was not applicable to him. Levy of penalty is held to be justified. (AY. 1999-2000 to 2001-02)