9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 978-79 to 1980-81 and 1981-82 to 1984-85 pertaining to one and the same assessee. The questions referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are as follows : I.T.R. Nos. 147 to 150 of 1996: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the fact that a search was conducted in the premises of the assessee under section 132 of the Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted on the premises of the assessee on February 23, 1984, and then certain fixed deposits and bank pass books were seized. The assessee filed a return of wealth on March 31, 1986, declaring additional net wealth for the purpose of the Amnesty Scheme. It is submitted by the senior standing counsel that no advantage could be taken by the assessee of the return filed after the search operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rower fashion that an assessee will be deprived of its benefit, simply because he was subjected to search, notwithstanding that there was no detection of any concealment. The scheme has to be interpreted rationally. We do not agree with learned senior standing counsel that the scheme is to be interpreted by applying a straitjacket formula that it excludes the class of assessees, who were subjected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of this court. We have carefully gone through the two sets of orders of the Tribunal. It is correct that the Tribunal has not analysed the matter in the way we laid down the guidelines in our judgment in the case of N. C. J. John [1998] 233 ITR 475 (Ker) to find out as to in what circumstances the return filed to take advantage of the Amnesty Scheme after the search operation, could be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
