1. V. V. KAMAT, J.---These references relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1966-67, respectively, and the questions expecting our answer are as follows: "Assessm ent year 1967-68: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax. Act, 1961, for the year 1967-68 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works?
2. Assessm ent year 1966-67: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the year 1966-67 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works?"
3. With regard to both the assessm ent years, returns were filed on June 26, 1968. It appears that for the assessm ent year 1967-68, Rs.2,723 was shown as income liable to tax and for the assessment year 1966-67, it was shown as Rs.3,692.
4. Thereafter, it appears that on January 30, 1971, revised returns were filed. Particulars are unnecessary in regard thereto. For the assessment year 1967-68, revised income was shown to be Rs.24,882 and in regard thereto, Rs.15,700 was shown as business income from contract and Rs.5,982 as income from share profit from Kallatra Constructions. The materials showed that there wag an investment of Rs.30,000 of the assessee in the firm of Kallatra Constructions and in the said firm, the assessee was a partner having 1/7th share of profit along with six other partners. This source of investment was disclosed as "(1) Rs.10,000 received as loan from hic uncle, and (2)
5. Rs.20,000 received from one K. Abdul Kader Haji".
6. It appears that for the assessm ent year 1967-68, the amount of Rs.5,962 shown towards share of profit from Kallatra Constructions was increased to Rs.12;242, Apart from the above orders passed by the Income-- tax Officer, the matter was referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for concealment of income for both the years.
7. The assessee had submitted his explanation dated February 13, 1973 w in pursuance of the notice issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. In the process, for the year 1966-67, a penalty of Rs.20,000 was imposed and for the year 1967-68, a penalty of RsJ0,500 was imposed, The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was in seisin of the situation with regard to the assessment years. The Tribunal, by order, dated August 27, 1975, held that for the assessment year 1966-67, a penalty could not be levied. However, with regard to the assessment year 1967-68, the penalty of Rs.6,000 was sustained. Thus the matter came up before this Court in CIT v. K. Mahim (1984) 149 ITR
737. This Court considered the situation in I.T.R. Nos. 154 and 155 of 1979, at the instance of the Revenue. This Court took up for consideration the position as a result of tiling of revised returns voluntarily and as to whether it would exonerate the assesses from the liability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This was in regard to the assessment year 1966-67. The position is concluded by the above judgment against the assessee, because the question has been answered in favour of the Revenue. For completion of the judgment, the question that was framed was as follows (page 742): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances 'of the case, the Income-tax-Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deciding "the appeal for the assessment year 1966-67 on the basis that filing of revised returns voluntarily by the assessee will exonerate the assessee from the penal provision under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
8. With regard to the year 1967-68, this Court considered the question, in the format of question No. (2), which is as follows (page 742): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the position that the assessee had filed the revised returns when he came to know that investigations by the Department were going against him, the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee has filed the revised returns 'by himself voluntarily' and that he had disclosed the income for the assessm ent year 1966-67 is perverse and unreasonable?"
9. It would be seen that even in regard to the assessment year in question, a specific conclusion is recorded to the following, effect (page 750): "The correct income in relation to that source has now been fixed at Rs.14,242. We are of the view that the correct income for the purpose of computation of penalty should be reckoned as Rs.14,242, in the event of its being held that penalty is leviable.
10. It was in this situation, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, was called upon to consider the questions reproduced at the outset. In Paragraph 7 of the order of the Tribunal, with regard to the assessm ent year 1966-67, the submissions are considered by the Tribunal. Similarly, with regard to the assessm ent year 1967-68, the question is considered in paragraph 13 of the order of the Tribunal.
11. With regard to the assessm ent year' 1967-68, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there has been concealment of income of Rs.15,700 being income from contract business. With regard to the same assessm ent year, the Tribunal had to hold back on the conclusions recorded by this Court earlier as stated above that the computation of the penalty should be reckoned on the basis of the income at Rs.14,242. It is on the, basis of the above factual reasoning, in a controlled manner, as stated above, in view of the earlier decision of this Court and taken into consideration all other factors, for the assessm ent years 1966-67 and 1967-68; minimum penalties have been ordered to be leviable.
12. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
13. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench, as required by law.