case is that the claim of deduction u/s 80HHC on the alleged 'Deemed Exports' had been made by the assesses in the original returns and it was never withdrawn voluntarily by the assesses by filing revised returns before the completion of the original assessments. As a matter of fact, the assesses has neither filed revised returns of income suo motto (sic “suo motu”) within a reasonable time, withdrawing its claim for deduction u/s 80HHC on the alleged deemed exports, even after the appellate order was passed by the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for the Assessment year 2001-02 on 27.08.2004. It is found that the assessee waited for the receipt of the notice u/s 148 from the Assessing Officer in the above matter. Hence, the income offered by the assessee in the returns filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 by withdrawing the deduction u/s 80HHC to certain extent cannot be said to be a voluntary act on the part of the assessee. It is a clear case of detection of income escaping assessment owing to the wrong claim by the assessee. The payment of tax by the assessee in respect of the filing of the returns of income consequent upon the notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be treated at par with Advance-tax. The judgement relied upon by the AR in the case of Dr.Prannoy Roy and Another -vsCIT and Another 254 ITR 755 (SC) is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case, as in the above judgement, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that interest would be payable in a case, where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income-tax return. The increase in the quantum of interest charged u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act in this case is mainly due to the increase in the total income finally assessed as per the reassessment orders. The contention of the assessee that since he has paid the tax, no interest is chargeable in this case is not in conformity with the provisions of the IT Act. The other case laws relied upon by the AR, as mentioned above, are, therefore, found to be not applicable on the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, such as, detection of concealment of income by the Assessing Officer, nonsubmission of voluntary returns before the above detection and non-disclosure of true and correct income in the original returns are the relevant issues, wherein the assessee has totally failed to establish its case within the four comers of the CBDT'S Circular in F.N.400/29/2002-IT (B) dated 26.06.2006.
