9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on the file. Brief facts in the present appeal are that assessee filed a declaration under s. 65(1) of VDIS, 1997 on 13th Dec., 1997. The assessee declared gold and diamond jewellery in her affidavit acquired during the year 1985-86, however, the assessee failed to deposit the tax. As per assessment order, information was received from CIT office on 30th March, 2005, therefore, notice under s. 148 was served upon the assessee on the same date. The assessee filed a return for asst. yr. 1998-99 on 28th April, 2005 in response to notice under s. 148 of the Act. Notice under s. 143(2) along with questionnaire was served upon the assessee to which the proceedings were attended on behalf of the assessee, from time to time. The assessee in her reply dt. 24th Feb., 2006 quoted that s. 67(2) of the VDIS scheme, if the declarant fails to pay the tax before the expiry of three months from the date of filing of declaration, the declaration filed by the assessee shall be deemed to be as never made under the scheme. Sec. 69 (A) provides that where in any financial year the assessee is found to be owner of any money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of gold jewellery and diamond jewellery was assessable in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment in the assessment year under consideration i.e. 1998-99. The assessment framed by the AO in this regard vide his order passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147/148 dt. 15th March, 2002 has been assailed unsuccessful before the CIT(A) on various grounds and the same grounds have also been taken up before the Tribunal. We find it expedient to dispose of the present appeal by adverting to a short issue as to whether or not AO was justified in assuming jurisdiction under s. 147/148 of the Act to make the impugned assessment. The facts relevant to decide the said controversy are as follows. The assessee is an individual. In this case the assessee declared gold and diamond jewellery in the scheme of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS-97) on 31st Dec., 1997. In the declaration made in the prescribed form which was accompanied by an affidavit, the assessee declared the amount of jewellery at Rs. 2,40,327 and it was related to asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88. Having made the declaration in the prescribed manner, the assessee, however did not deposit the requisite tax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Representative has defended the stand of the AO on the ground that on 31st Dec., 2007 (1997) when the assessee filed the declaration under VDIS scheme, she was found to be the owner of gold and diamond jewellery declared in the scheme. Since tax payable under VDIS was not so paid, the assessee did not enjoy immunity provided under the scheme and therefore the provisions of s. 69A were attracted. Therefore the value of gold and diamond jewellery was liable to be considered as deemed income of the assessee in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1998-99. Therefore, the AO did not commit any error in initiating proceedings under s. 147/148 for the asst. yr. 1998-99. We have considered the rival submissions carefully on this aspect and find that an identical. issue has been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani, HUF. In the case before Lucknow Bench the assessment for the asst. yr. 1998-99 was reopened on the basis that the assessee had failed to pay tax as per declaration under VDIS-97. The assessee therein had disclosed incomes in the declaration which pertain to assessment years other than asst. yr. 1998-99. However the AO in tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an escapement of income for the asst. yr. 1998-99 clearly emerges in this case also. The material so relied upon clearly points out that the assets in question were acquired in the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 and not 1998-99. Following the reasoning made out by the Tribunal in the case of Inder Kumar Bachani, HUF which we have extracted above, the initiation of proceedings under s. 147/148 is unjustified and untenable. As a consequence, the subsequent assessment framed is liable to be quashed. We hold so. Since we have held the issuance of notice under s. 148 to be invalid, the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic and are not being pressed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as above". On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the decision of ITO vs. Gurpreet Kaur passed by learned Single Member, dt. 8th Aug., 2007, wherein the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. We have perused this order and found that the issue was remanded back due to the reason that the learned CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts vis-a-vis the reasons recorded by the AO as is evident from p. 5 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
