9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit under amnesty scheme after filing revised return post survey. 2. Tribunal's decision on voluntary disclosure of income after survey. 3. Refusal of Tribunal to refer the question of law under section 256(1). 4. Determining the voluntary nature of filing a return post survey. 5. Rebuttable presumption arising from filing a return after survey. 6. Sufficiency of evidence required to rebut the presumption. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with cases where the assessee filed revised returns post a survey at the business place, initially declaring a loss but later disclosing income to claim benefits under an amnesty scheme. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit, considering the revised return as not voluntary. The Commissioner and Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the question of eligibility for amnesty scheme benefits. 2. The Tribunal found that in the present cases, no incriminating material was discovered during the survey, and the returns were filed in good faith. Referring to a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the amnesty scheme benefits as the disclosure was not a result of detection during the survey, leading to the rejection of the orders denying the benefit. 3. The Commissioner sought a reference to the High Court on the question of law regarding the voluntary nature of filing a revised return post survey under section 256(2) after the Tribunal rejected the application under section 256(1). The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the question of whether a return post-survey is voluntary is a question of fact and not a legal issue necessitating a reference. 4. The High Court emphasized that the mere conduct of a survey does not automatically imply non-disclosure by the assessee. It clarified that the determination of whether a return filed post-survey was voluntary or prompted by detection is a factual inquiry. The Tribunal's findings that no incriminating material was found and the disclosure was made in good faith were considered factual and not legal issues. 5. Regarding the rebuttable presumption arising from filing a return post-survey, the High Court noted that such a presumption, if any, is a question of fact and can be overturned during proceedings with sufficient evidence. The sufficiency of evidence required to rebut such a presumption was deemed a factual matter, not a legal question necessitating a reference. 6. Ultimately, the High Court rejected the applications, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings were based on factual considerations regarding the absence of incriminating material during the survey and the good faith disclosure by the assessee. As no legal questions were identified, the applications were dismissed without costs.
|
