9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of the Tribunal's decision on the assessee's claim for set off of disclosed income against addition to income for a specific assessment year. 2. Legality of dividing the disclosed income into equal parts for different assessment years by the Tribunal. Analysis: The case involved an assessee, a partnership firm, disclosing income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance for assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The Income-tax Officer added an amount to the assessee's income due to inflated purchases. The assessee sought set-off of the disclosed income against this addition. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a certificate showing the disclosure amount without specifying the year. Later, the assessee specified that a portion of the disclosed amount related to the assessment year 1974-75. The court emphasized the voluntary nature of disclosure, stating that the choice of the disclosing party should be respected. The Department had no right to divide the amount among different years if the assessee intended it for a specific year. The court referred to the legislative ambiguity and the need to interpret laws sympathetically to achieve their purpose. Quoting Judge Learned Hand, the court highlighted the importance of understanding statutes' objectives. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal was not justified in denying the set-off claim based on the assessee's choice and in dividing the disclosed amount into equal parts for different assessment years. The disclosure's date logically made it applicable to the assessment year 1974-75. In conclusion, the court decided in favor of the assessee, directing the Tribunal to take further action if necessary. No costs were awarded, but counsel fees were fixed. The judgment clarified the importance of respecting the disclosing party's choice in voluntary disclosures and highlighted the court's role in interpreting laws to achieve their intended purpose.
|
