9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and all demands thereto have been paid by the petitioner. The returns filed by the petitioner were accepted by the Income-tax Officer without any variation. The petitioner, for the assessment year 1983-84, had shown balance in the capital account at Rs. 87,200, for the assessment year 1984-85 Rs. 1,10,200, for the assessment year 1985-86 Rs. 1,33,500 and for the assessment year 1986-87 Rs. 1,58,700. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, receiving some information about the concealed income, conducted a raid on December 17, 1986, on the business premises of Milan Supari, Sarvottam Supari Stores and Hilman Traders. The residential places of the partners of the said firms were also raided. The husband of the petitioner is a partner of the aforesaid firms and is living jointly with other brothers and their wives at House No. 12, Daulat Ganj, Indore. During the course of the raid, along with other articles, the savings bank pass-book of Account No. 9216, in the name of the petitioner at Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore, was seized and prohibitory/garnishee order dated December 15, 1986, under section 132(3) and rule 112B of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1986-87 and the source of income was admitted on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner. It is also not denied that the returns were filed under the Amnesty Scheme before the Income-tax Officer, M-Ward, Indore, and that the income shown by the petitioner for the assessment years 1983-84 till 1986-87 has been assessed under the Amnesty Scheme. It is also admitted that a prohibitory order in respect of the bank account of the petitioner was issued to the bank in view of the fact that the petitioner could not prove the source of the deposit and the deposit was treated as unexplained investment of the husband of the petitioner. It was denied that the amount in the name of the petitioner is the exclusive income of the petitioner and that the other persons have no relation whatsoever with it. As regards the passing of order under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, the respondents state that such an order is not required to be passed since no assets were seized from the possession of the petitioner. The account in the name of the petitioner has simply been prohibited as, in fact, the account belongs to the husband of the petitioner. It has further been averred that as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had a capital account of Rs. 95,200 in the year 1983-84, it was Rs. 1,17,700 in the year 1984-85, Rs. 1,40,700 in the year 1985-86 and in the year 1986-87 it was Rs. 1,66,400. She was also assessed to income-tax for the aforesaid years and she had an amount of Rs. 1,51,847.90 as credit balance in her account No. 9217 with the Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore. Similarly, the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 916 of 1987, Mst. Hamidabano was also assessed to income-tax for the years 1983-84 till 1986-87 and her capital account as shown in the last income-tax return was Rs. 1,68,700 and she had account No. 9218 with the Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore, having a balance of Rs. 1,51,848.20. The petitioner, Rashidabano, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 918 of 1987 was also assessed to income-tax for the same years as aforesaid and according to the last assessment for the year 1986-87, her capital account was Rs. 1,80,190 and she had a savings bank account No. 9383 having balance of Rs. 1,51,671.90 with the Canara Bank, Siyaganj Branch, Indore. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 920 of 1987, Mst. Mariyambai, was assessed to income-tax for the same years as afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heme shall be frustrated. The Amnesty Schemes are actually formulated to unearth undeclared money and to afford an opportunity to the tax evaders to voluntarily declare the money which had evaded tax and to pay the tax under the scheme. The intention of the scheme is also clear from the reply to question No. 25 referred to above by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, that the declarant cannot be compelled to declare the source of his/her income while making the declaration under the Amnesty Scheme. Now, what the Supreme Court in the case of Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal [1981] 138 ITR 244 has held is that if a voluntary disclosure is made by some persons, then the immunity under the voluntary disclosure scheme is available only to the declarant. The income-tax authorities are not precluded from enquiring into the genuineness of the cash credits in the names of the declarants while assessing the accounts of the firm which show cash credits in the names of the declarants. The income-tax authorities can enquire into the genuineness of the cash credits in the accounts of the firm and are not precluded from knowing the source of the cash credits. The principle of double taxation shall not appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee if the source of such income remained undisclosed. The aforesaid principle enunciated by the Supreme Court was again followed by the Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Rattan Lal [1984] 145 ITR 183. In both the aforesaid authorities, the principle laid down is very clear that the income-tax authorities are not precluded from knowing the source of the income in the hands of an assessee even if such an income has been declared by the creditor under the Amnesty or Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, on the principle that the "Amnesty" under the Scheme of Voluntary Disclosure is available to the declarant alone and not to any other persons to whom the income really belonged and who are subject to assessment. In the instant case, it is uncontroverted that the five petitioners have not been shown as creditors in the books of account of the firm of which the respective husbands of the petitioners are the partners. The amount declared is also not in the hands of the husbands. If there would have been a case of cash having been found in the house, then also the disputed question would have arisen whether the cash belongs to the husbands or to the respective petitioners. In the instant case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SC) also, it was held that the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is confined to the declarant alone and is not extended to the assessment of a third party assessee in relation to the income disclosed by the declarant. As discussed above in the instant case, the income of the petitioners declared by them is deposited in a nationalised bank in their own names and the amount declared by the petitioners is not credited in the books of account of their husbands or their firms. As such, in our opinion, the respondents have clearly erred in issuing prohibitory orders pertaining to the bank accounts of the petitioners while assessing the income of the firms in which the husbands of the petitioners are the partners. The amnesty is available to the petitioners, since the amount declared by each of them is in their names. Therefore, their failure to explain the source of income would not deprive them of the amnesty under the Scheme under which they have declared their income and have been assessed to tax accordingly. In the result, all the five petitions succeed and are allowed with costs. The prohibitory orders passed by the respondents in relation to the savings bank accounts of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
