9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining to the assessment year 1973-74, which happens to be the subject matter of the present reference. In the said return, the assessee mentioned the income from house property as Rs. 200, business income Rs. 22,000 and pointed out that his total income which is liable to be assessed for taxation was Rs. 22,200. When the Assessing Officer was considering it, he noticed that the assessee had filed the return in view of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in the context of the wealth-tax and in the said return, he pointed out that he was having the amount towards the capital which was to the tune of Rs. 94,500. The Assessing Officer was scrutinising the return filed by the assessee, he found that this amount of Rs. 94,500 was not mentioned in the return filed for the purpose of the Act and therefore, he called on the assessee for hearing and during hearing the assessee was unable to explain this income to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the Assessing Officer treated it as unexplained income and added it in "capital" of the assessee. Thus, the capital increased to the tune of Rs. 1,95,500. In view of that, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts revealed by the return filed by the assessee and the return filed by the assessee in view of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. He submitted that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax is well reasoned confirming the judgment and order passed by the Assessing Officer. There was no ground for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to dislodge the adjudication of the Assessing Officer and resultant penalty imposed against the assessee making him liable to pay the amount of Rs. 94,500. He submitted that the assessee should have mentioned in the return filed under the provisions of the Act that he had income of Rs. 94,500 as disclosed vide return filed in view of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. He submitted further that as it was not done, because the assessee was not following the provisions of section 147(a) of the Act. He submitted that the reasons given by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in dislodging this, happen to be wrong in view of the provisions of law and facts depicted by the matter. He submitted that in view of that, the reference as proposed, needs to be directed to be referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, this appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by the appellant was misconceived because the question before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing of the appeal was not whether the assessee had failed to disclose the transaction of Rs. 1,10,000 in the return and the statements accompanying it, but whether there was any omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the year in question." Shri Sarda further placed reliance on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of CIT v. Purushottamdas [1999] 236 ITR 573. In the said matter, the Division Bench of this court held that an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue for calling for a statement of case from the Tribunal on the following question of law: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) even after confirming the unexplained investment in quantum appeal?" was not liable to be referred. For the purpose of dealing with the topic involved during the submissions disclosed by counsel appearing for the parties, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Act pertaining to the assessment year in question. In this case, there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee in truly and fully disclosing the income. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the spirit behind bringing forth the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. The Voluntary Disclosure Scheme was for the purpose of inviting the members of the public to go for voluntarily disclosure and in view of introduction of that Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, the assessee in the present case disclosed the said amount of Rs. 94,500 and when the Assessing Officer was scrutinising the return pertaining to the assessment year in question, this information was in his possession. Shri R.L. Jain submitted that the assessee should have put a note on the return submitted by him which is involved in the present matter that he had disclosed this amount in the return filed by him in respect of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act in view of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme and the failure to do so was amounting to omission or failure on his part to "disclose truly and fully" and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Assessing Officer was correct, lawful and was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
