9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (5) TMI 200 - SC - Income TaxCIT opined that as a partner is an intrinsic part of a firm, only because no specific search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee-firm, the same would not entitle it to take benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme 1997 - in view the purport and object of Scheme, in the place of literal interpretation, the rule of purposive construction should be applied - not a fit case where we should invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution of India
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under section 64(2) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS), 1997. 2. Applicability of the VDIS to a firm and its partners. 3. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the VDIS declaration. 4. Interpretation of the VDIS provisions in light of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The effect of a partner's retraction of admission on the VDIS declaration. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 64(2) of the VDIS, 1997: The petitioner challenged the order dated May 13, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, which refused to entertain the application under the VDIS. The core issue was whether the Commissioner had the authority to revoke the certificate issued under section 68(2) of the VDIS, 1997. The court noted that the certificate was declared null and void because the assets declared under the VDIS had already been discovered during a search and seizure action on April 18, 1997, which was not disclosed by the assessee while filing the VDIS declaration. The court upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the non-disclosure of the search and seizure action constituted a violation of the scheme's requirements. 2. Applicability of the VDIS to a Firm and its Partners: The petitioner argued that a firm and its partners are distinct entities under the Income-tax Act, and actions taken against a partner should not affect the firm. The court, however, held that a partner represents the firm and any action taken by a partner binds the firm. The court emphasized that for the purpose of the VDIS, the firm and its partners cannot be treated separately when it comes to immunity from penal actions. The court also referred to the circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which clarified that a firm's declaration under the VDIS covers the income of the firm, and partners need not make separate declarations. 3. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation in the VDIS Declaration: The court found that the petitioner had engaged in fraudulent actions by not disclosing the prior search and seizure action and by making a declaration under the VDIS for the same amount that had been discovered during the search. The court noted that the income disclosed under the VDIS was already known to the Income-tax Department, and the petitioner had deliberately withheld this fact. The court emphasized that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, and fraudulent actions render the act a nullity. 4. Interpretation of the VDIS Provisions in Light of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The court held that while the VDIS has a direct nexus with the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of the VDIS should not be judged solely on the touchstone of the Income-tax Act. The court applied the rule of purposive construction, emphasizing that the VDIS should be interpreted in a manner that achieves its objective of granting immunity under specific conditions. The court noted that the VDIS requires a full and true disclosure of income, and the information should not be in the prior knowledge of the Department. 5. The Effect of a Partner's Retraction of Admission on the VDIS Declaration: The petitioner contended that the partner had retracted his admission, and therefore, no action should be taken based on the initial admission. The court, however, did not consider the retraction to be material in this case. The court noted that the initial admission by the partner and the subsequent declaration by the firm were based on the same undisclosed income discovered during the search. The court held that the retraction did not negate the fact that the income was already in the Department's knowledge and that the VDIS declaration was made with the intent to cover up the prior non-disclosure. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax's order that declared the VDIS certificate null and void. The court emphasized that the petitioner had failed to meet the conditions of the VDIS by not making a full and true disclosure and by withholding material information about the prior search and seizure action. The court applied a purposive interpretation of the VDIS provisions, highlighting that fraudulent actions and misrepresentation vitiate the benefits of the scheme.
|
