1980 (3) TMI 61 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cash credits in the names of M/s. Tilumal Lachhman Dass and Jagpat Rai.
2. Applicability of the voluntary disclosure scheme under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965.
3. Whether the amounts declared by the assessee's sons could be taxed in the hands of the assessee.
4. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to question the declarations made under the voluntary disclosure scheme.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cash Credits:
The primary issue was whether the amounts of Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 17,500, credited in the names of M/s. Tilumal Lachhman Dass and Jagpat Rai respectively, could be treated as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources for the assessment year 1962-63. The ITO found that the assessee's sons, who were minors at the time, had no plausible source of income to justify these credits. Consequently, the ITO added these amounts to the assessee's income and disallowed the interest credited to these accounts.

2. Applicability of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme:
The assessee's sons filed declarations under the voluntary disclosure scheme introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, declaring the amounts as their untaxed income. The scheme was designed to encourage disclosure of previously untaxed income by offering immunity from further investigation and penalties. The assessee argued that since the amounts had been taxed under this scheme in the hands of his sons, they should not be taxed again in his hands.

3. Taxation of Declared Amounts:
The court examined whether the amounts declared by the assessee's sons could be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The Delhi High Court had previously ruled in Rattan Lal v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 681 that the ITO could not question the declarations made under the voluntary disclosure scheme and treat the amounts as the assessee's income. The court held that the legal fiction created by Section 24(3) of the Finance Act, 1965, imprinted the character of "total income" on the declared amount, making it immune from being taxed again in the hands of another assessee.

4. Jurisdiction of the ITO:
The court reiterated that the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to go behind the declarations made under the voluntary disclosure scheme. The declarations had already been accepted, and the tax had been paid. Therefore, the ITO could not treat the amounts as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources.

Separate Judgments:

Judgment by Ranganathan J.:
Ranganathan J. emphasized the binding nature of the court's earlier decision in Rattan Lal's case, which held that the ITO could not question the declarations made under the voluntary disclosure scheme. He noted that the scheme aimed to bring undisclosed income into the open and that taxing the same income again would amount to double taxation. He concluded that the principle established in Rattan Lal's case should apply, and the amounts could not be treated as the assessee's income.

Judgment by Khanna J.:
Khanna J. acknowledged the differences in the facts of the present case compared to Rattan Lal's case but agreed that the decision in Rattan Lal's case was binding. He noted that the voluntary disclosure scheme did not provide blanket protection against inquiries for all amounts credited in the books of third parties. However, he concurred with Ranganathan J. that the court was bound by the earlier decision, and the assessee's appeal should be allowed based on the ratio laid down in Rattan Lal's case.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it was not open to the ITO to go behind the declarations made by the assessee's sons and add the amounts of Rs. 25,500 to the assessee's income. The question referred was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.