9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Entitlement to benefit under the amnesty scheme for assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act, had filed returns for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1981-82. The assessments were set aside by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) due to lack of proper hearing, rendering the original orders non est in the eye of law. Subsequently, the petitioner filed returns under the amnesty scheme for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82. The Wealth-tax Officer refused to consider these returns citing higher assessed wealth than declared wealth. The petitioner challenged this refusal, arguing that once returns are filed under the amnesty scheme, they should be accepted without scrutiny. The petitioner relied on circulars and legal precedents to support the claim that the Wealth-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to reject the returns based on higher assessed wealth. The court noted that the amnesty scheme allowed disclosure even in cases of assessments set aside on appeal, emphasizing that once assessments are set aside, they hold no legal weight. The court held that the grounds for refusal by the Wealth-tax Officer were invalid and ordered the acceptance of the returns filed under the amnesty scheme. The court emphasized that the circulars issued by the government regarding the amnesty scheme were binding on departmental officers. It referenced legal precedents to support the argument that once assessments are set aside, they are non est in the eye of law and cannot be relied upon. The court also highlighted a question and answer provided by the Finance Minister regarding disclosures under the amnesty scheme, further reinforcing the petitioner's position that the Wealth-tax Officer had no authority to reject the returns. The court found the grounds for refusal by the Wealth-tax Officer to be frivolous and lacking legal merit, ultimately quashing the refusal and ordering the acceptance of the returns. In the absence of any opposition affidavits from the Department, the court proceeded to analyze the case based on the facts and legal arguments presented by the petitioner. It concluded that since no assessment order existed at the time of the amnesty scheme, and considering the provisions of the scheme itself, the refusal to accept the returns based on previous assessments being set aside was legally untenable. The court reiterated that assessments set aside hold no legal validity and cannot be used to reject returns filed under the amnesty scheme. Therefore, the court set aside the refusal by the Wealth-tax Officer and directed the acceptance of the returns for the assessment years in question, upholding the petitioner's entitlement to the benefit under the amnesty scheme.
|
