9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) floated w.e.f. 10.05.2013. The assessee filed the declaration under the said Scheme, disclosing tax liability to the extent of Rs. 93,71,419/-. It was rejected by original adjudicating authority. In terms of the said Scheme, 50% of the disclosed income is required to be deposited at the time of filing of declaration. While calculating the said 50% of the demand, the assessee took into consideration the deposits made by them prior to 10.05.2013 i.e. prior to the floating of the Scheme itself. 3. The said declaration was rejected by the lower authorities and on appeal, Commissioner (Appeals), while relying upon the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Satguru Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon incorrect statements made by the parties, a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the earlier order of Hon'ble Supreme Court stands recalled, reported in 2016-TIOL-88-SC-ST and the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, he fairly agrees that there is no stay of operation of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana's decision in the case of Barnala Builders. 5.1. As regards the second issue, ld. A.R., though agrees that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Satguru Construction Co. is applicable to the facts of the case, but submits that the same is distinguishable on facts. While drawing our attention to the said decision, he submits that the assessee in that case had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to challenge the order of Designated Authority, there is Punjab & Haryana High Court decision laying down the the said order are appealable. In the absence of any other decision to the contrary and there being no stay of the said decision of the Hon'ble High court, we are unable to find favour with the Revenue's contention. 9. As regards the second issue, we find that the same is covered by above referred decision of not only Hon'ble Gujarat High Court but also by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court laying down that the deposits made before 10.05.2013 are required to be taken into consideration. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, Revenue's appeal is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
