9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Detection of concealment of income prior to 31-3-1986. 2. Availability of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Detection of Concealment of Income Prior to 31-3-1986: The primary question examined was whether there was detection of concealment of income before 31-3-1986. The revenue argued that the detection occurred on 12-5-1981, the date of the seizure of documents from a third party. However, the tribunal clarified that the term 'detection' implies uncovering or discovering hidden facts. In this case, the documents were seized from a third party not directly connected to the assessee's business. Despite the seizure on 12-5-1981, the notice under section 148 was served on 15-3-1988, indicating that the revenue had not acted on the seized documents for almost seven years. Moreover, the original assessments for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed after the seizure, suggesting that the revenue had no knowledge of the contents of the seized documents. The tribunal concluded that mere recovery of documents does not equate to detection of concealed income unless the documents explicitly reveal contravention of law. The tribunal emphasized that the revenue had no reasonable belief about the contents of the documents before 31-3-1986, thus there was no detection of concealment by the revenue prior to the filing of the revised returns on 31-3-1986. 2. Availability of the Benefit of the Amnesty Scheme to the Assessee: The second issue was whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. The scheme, issued by the CBDT on 17-2-1986, allowed for immunity if the assessee made a full and true disclosure of income. The assessee filed revised returns on 31-3-1986, claiming protection under this scheme. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, supported by the revenue, citing Question No. 12 of the circular which denies immunity to those whose premises have been searched. However, the tribunal noted that the search in the assessee's premises resulted in no seizure, implying no incriminating evidence was found. The tribunal referred to Question No. 30 of the circular, which allows declarations of income not subject to seizure, and concluded that a search without seizure does not bar the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Furthermore, the tribunal considered Question No. 7, which provides immunity if the investigation in a third party's case indicates concealment by the assessee and the assessee makes a full disclosure. Since the documents were seized from a third party and no investigation was conducted before 31-3-1986, the tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the scheme's benefits. Supporting Judgments: The tribunal referenced the case of Prakash Oil Industries & Ginning Factory, where it was held that disclosure under the Amnesty Scheme is valid if made before any detection by the revenue. Similarly, in Ambassador Dry Cleaners v. Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed immunity from penalty and prosecution if the assessee truthfully disclosed income and paid taxes. These judgments reinforced the tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s order and dismiss the revenue's appeals. Conclusion: The tribunal confirmed that there was no detection of concealed income by the revenue before 31-3-1986 and that the assessee was eligible for the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections by the assessee were deemed infructuous.
|
