9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artners of the assessee-firm and recorded their statements on oath on 11th June, 1985, and 18th June, 1986. Subsequently on 1st Aug., 1986, the assessee filed a return in response to notice under s. 148 declaring income of Rs. 1,09,148, i.e., the same as in the original return. In the return, the amount of Rs. 1,05,000 was claimed as exempt from tax and shown in Annexure-III of the return. In the covering letter to the return, it was stated that in order to avoid litigations, the assessee may agree for the addition, provided the assessee is granted immunity from penalty, prosecution and interest. The assessee was again requested to prove the genuineness of the credits to which the assessee did not reply nor attended. In the meantime, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was in pursuance of notice issued under s. 148. The appellant had not been given any immunity under the Amnesty Scheme as claimed by him. The appellant had admitted the income as he failed to prove the cash credits to the satisfaction of the AO. The appellant himself cannot on his own claim immunity under the Amnesty Scheme till the return was accepted as such. The addition so made was also not contested in the appeal as it was admitted as income. The plea of the appellant that the said income was shown only with a view to buy peace of mind and to avoid litigations was not correct as the income was not disclosed till the same was detected by the Department and assessed as such in the hands of the appellant. Similarly, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding letter he offered that the assessee was prepared to surrender the amounts if no penalty was levied. He submitted that the return filed by the assessee cannot be treated as a return under the Amnesty Scheme because the Department had proved detection of concealed income and as per reply to question No. 19 relied upon by the learned counsel of the assessee, the case fell outside the purview of the Amnesty Scheme because it was not a case of prima facie belief but by enquiries concealment had been established. The learned Departmental Representative also tried to distinguish the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record. Question No. 19 and reply thereto in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled, the assessee claimed the cash credits aggregating to Rs. 1,05,000 as accepted. Later on when the Amnesty Scheme came into existence, the assessee tried to avail of the benefits of the same, but that was too late. By that time concealment had been detected by investigations made by the AO and accordingly, we agree with the finding of the CIT(A) and CIT(Admn.) that the case of the assessee does not fall under the Amnesty Scheme. 7. Now coming to the two cases relied upon by the learned counsel, we find that the same are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Smt. Manoramadevi Agrawal, the assessee had failed to file returns under WT Act on time. Thereafter, the returns were filed during the operation of Amnesty Scheme on receipt of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
