9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not provide any assistance for reasonable construction, so as to meet its object. This Court has no hesitation to reject the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the authority has jurisdiction to invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to withdraw or revoke the certificates issued Section 68(2) of VDIS. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot avail the benefits under VDIS, having contravened Section 64(2)(1), and as the notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.06.1997, which is prior to the notification of VDIS, wherein which the petitioner declared the gifts from NRI amounting to ₹ 6,00,000/- and since there is prohibition under VDIS, that when the amount so declared is already disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed before the Scheme came into operation, the same cannot be stated once again by way of revised return of income. Order passed by the 1st respondent is well found and the petitioner has misrepresented before the authority to avail the benefits under the Scheme VDIS by suppressing the declaration made in the returns filed prior to the notification of VDIS. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. - W.P.No.32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 08.05.1997 and in the said return, such availing of VDIS was not proper and the petitioner is not entitle to get the benefits under the Scheme, to which the petitioner had filed an objection. 4. It is also further stated in the affidavit that the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore on the objection made by the petitioner, passed an order under Section 263 of Income Tax Act on 28.03.2001, as against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No.676/Mds/2001, which finally came to be disposed by the Appellate Tribunal on 05.10.2007. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 11.03.2008 seeking to cancel the certificate issued under Section 68(2) of VIDS to the petitioner and his two sons on the ground that the certificates have been obtained on 'Misrepresentation of Facts'. 5. According to the petitioner, he had filed his response to the notice dated 11.03.2008 However, the 1st respondent by an order dated 08.07.2009 has cancelled / revoked the certificate issued under Section 68(2) of VDIS invoking Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 as against which the present writ petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion Bench of this Court. (iii) (2002) 254 ITR 255 (Gujarat) in Vasantlal Tulsidas Agarwal V. C.I.T. by High Court of Gujarat . (iv) (2000) 241 ITR 287 (AP) in Patchala Seetharamaiah V. Commissioner of Income Tax by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhrapradesh. (v) (1998) 230 ITR 536 (AP) in Shankarlal V. I.T.O. and Others by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhrapradesh (vi) (2007) 295 ITR 0136 in M.Srinivasa Rao V. The A.C.I.T by this Court. (vii) (2002) 253 ITR 334 C.I.T. V. Mintu Kaltia by the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati. 12. In response to the said averments made by the petitioner, the respondents had filed a detailed counter rebutting all the allegations made by him. 13. Per contra, Mr.Jayapratap, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner for the assessment year 1994 -1995 had declared the total income of ₹ 1,62,890/- However, in his capital account filed along with the return of income, he had showed ₹ 2,00,000/- for him and ₹ 2,00,000/- each as loan for his two minor sons. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. It is also not in dispute by the petitioner that he had filed a revised return on 08.05.1997 for the return filed on 14.03.1996. Only in the revised return, the petitioner had mentioned about ₹ 2,00,000/- for himself and ₹ 2,00,000/- received as gifts from NRI for each of his minor sons. However, when the VDIS was notified during the year 1997, the petitioner once over again filed his declaration before the Commissioner of Income Tax disclosing ₹ 6,00,000/- as income and sought waiver of penalty and certificates dated 06.01.1998 were also issued under Section 168(2) of VDIS to the petitioner and his two minor sons. 18. On perusal of the records, it is also clear that for the return filed belatedly on 14.03.1996 for the assessment year 1994-1995, the petitioner received a notice under Section 143(2), which was issued on 21.01.1998 and subsequently, a notice under Section 148 also came to be issued, to which the petitioner had responded by filing objection to the said notices and thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore passed a final order dated 28.03.2001 under Section 263 of Income Tax Act. 19. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voluntarily disclosed income (1) Subject to the provisions of this scheme, where any person makes, on or after the date of commencement of this Scheme but on or before the 31st Dec., 1997 a declaration in accordance with the provisions of S.65 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the IT Act for any assessment year - (a) for which he has failed to furnish a return under Section 139 of the act; (b) which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the IT Act before the date of commencement of this schedule; (c) which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of such person to make a retrun under the IT Act or to disclose fully and trully all materials facts necessary for his assessment or otherwise. Then, notwithstanding anything contained in the IT Act or in any Finance act, income-tax shall be charged in respect of the income so declared (such income being hereinafter referred to as the voluntarily disclosed income) at the rates specified hereunder, namely: (i) in the case of a declarant, being a company or a firm, at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only on 14.03.1996 belatedly, under Section 139(4) of Income Tax Act and subsequently, a revised return on 08.05.1997 seems to have been served with notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 23. It also clear from the records that the petitioner had appeared before the assessing officer in response to the notice issued under Section 148, which subsequently was dealt with culminating into a final order being passed on 28.03.2001 under Section 263 of Income Tax Act. Thereafter, as against the said order, admittedly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which came to be finally decided on 05.10.2007. When the scheme restricts the application of the benefits under the Scheme for those persons, who have been served with Notice under sections 142 or 148 of the Income Tax Act, prior to the notification of the VDIS scheme, 1997, the petitioner cannot avail the benefits under the scheme, he having been served with the notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 24. On a mere perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner has misrepresented in the VDIS scheme that ₹ 6,00,000/- as his own income, which was not disclosed earlier. Contradi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding of the above Section, it is clear that the scope of the Act will apply to any Central Act or Regulation and also to the Constitutions, as it is the Rule of interpretation which has been made applicable to the Constitution in the same manner as it applied to any Central Act or Regulation. No doubt, under the above Act, the power is vested with the authority to make an order which implies a power to revoke or modify or vary that order at any subsequent stages, unless there is a specific bar. 28. On a conjoint reading of Section 68 of VDIS and Section 21 of General Clauses Act, it is clear that the Scheme does not provide for any enquiry or investigation prior to the issuance of certificates under Section 68(2) of VDIS, when that being so, the only remedy available for the respondents is to avail Section 21 of General Clauses Act, which is a General application and the Rule of construction that can be applied to statute does not provide any assistance for reasonable construction, so as to meet its object. In this regard also, this Court has no hesitation to reject the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the authority has jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned proceedings initiated by the respondent after a lapse of 6 years cannot be allowed to continue and the impunged order was quashed. But this case is pertaining to the limitation and applicability to Section 153(3) of the Act has no application to the case on hand. 30. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot avail the benefits under VDIS, having contravened Section 64(2)(1), and as the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.06.1997, which is prior to the notification of VDIS, wherein which the petitioner declared the gifts from NRI amounting to ₹ 6,00,000/- and since there is prohibition under VDIS, that when the amount so declared is already disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed before the Scheme came into operation, the same cannot be stated once again by way of revised return of income. 31. In the result, the order passed by the 1st respondent is well found and the petitioner has misrepresented before the authority to avail the benefits under the Scheme VDIS by suppressing the declaration made in the returns filed prior to the notification of VDIS. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
