9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of exhibit P-9, Declaration of entitlement to benefits under amnesty scheme for assessment year 1986-87, Unwarranted prosecution in CC No. 66 of 1988.
Quashing of exhibit P-9: The petitioner filed a revised return of income for the assessment year 1986-87, claiming correct depreciation based on machinery installation date. Respondents alleged the initial return was bogus, with fabricated documents for excessive deductions. Petitioner argued the initial return was invalid as it was not signed by the managing director as required by section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act. However, the court cited Section 292B, stating a return is not invalid solely due to a mistake if it aligns with the Act's intent. The court found the initial return, though signed by an executive director, was in substance compliant, thus rejecting the petitioner's contention. Declaration of entitlement to benefits under amnesty scheme: Respondents claimed the petitioner's original return was dishonest, evidenced by falsified documents and excessive deductions. They argued that a subsequent return seeking amnesty was not voluntary, as it was filed only after the Revenue uncovered the false claims. Referring to a previous court decision, the court emphasized that correcting a deliberately dishonest return does not absolve the taxpayer from liability. The court concluded that the subsequent return was not voluntary and denied the petitioner's claim for amnesty. Unwarranted prosecution in CC No. 66 of 1988: After reviewing the facts and circumstances, the court found that the subsequent return filed by the petitioner seeking amnesty was not voluntary, indicating a lack of bona fide mistake correction. Consequently, the court dismissed the original petition, stating no grounds existed to set aside exhibit P-9 or grant amnesty to the petitioner for the assessment year 1986-87.
|
