9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, all these amounts were invested by these persons in the firm after making voluntary declaration under the Amnesty Scheme declared for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. Respondent No. 1 on November 17, 1989, issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, l963, challenging the deposit of the above sums on the ground that these amounts shown as deposited in the firm, are actually the income of the firm and not of the persons in whose accounts the amounts have been shown. The grievance of the petitioners is that once these amounts have been declared by the individuals under the Amnesty Scheme and assessed to tax by the competent authority, the Income-tax Officer was not authorised to issue the impugned notice. The notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whom the income really belonged and that the finality under section 24(8) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, was to the order of the Central Board under section 24(6) and not to the assessment of tax made on the declarations under the Scheme. The declaration could be made only in respect of the amount which represented the income of the declarant and such a declaration could not be made in respect of an amount which was not the income of the declarant. If, therefore, a person made a false declaration with respect to an amount which was not his income, but was the income of somebody else, then there was nothing to prevent an investigation into the true source of the amount. There was nothing in section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of the sources of amount found credited in the books of the firm in spite of these having already been made the subject-matter of a declaration made by the depositors to include them as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, does not have an overriding effect over section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in so far as persons other than the declarants are concerned. The petitioners are free to show before the Income-tax Officer that the income shown as deposits of Rameshchandra, Jagdishchandra and Anilkumar is their own income and not the income of the petitioner-firm. In the result, this petition is dismissed without notice to the othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
