9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to have been made on the same day, i.e., March 7, 1966. When the ITO called upon the assessee to explain the nature and source of these deposits, the assessee stated that they were made by these persons who had made voluntary disclosures under s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1965, on March 2, 1966, before the CIT and had paid tax thereon. The ITO was not satisfied with the explanation given or the evidence produced and the entire sum of Rs. 2,43,000 credited in the books of the assessee was treated as its income from undisclosed sources. The assessee went up in appeal. The AAC noted that most of these deposits were made in the names of close relations of the partners of the assessee-firm and they fell under two categories. Cash credits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared by the declarant. The Tribunal followed this view and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Pursuant to a petition of mandamus under s. 256(2) issued by, this court at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Tribunal has referred to us the following three questions of law for our opinion: " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, and on a true interpretation of section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that after having accepted the voluntary disclosures of the various creditors holding cash credits totalling Rs. 2,43,000 in the books of the assessee, the Department could not question the genuineness of these cash credits as appearing in the books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TR 244. Therein, under somewhat similar circumstances, the court observed as under (p. 258): " The next question that calls for determination is whether the non obstante clause contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 24 of the Act precludes the Department from proceeding against the person to whom the income actually belonged. Under sub-s. (1) of s. 24, the declaration was required to be made in respect of the amount which represented the income of the declarant. The 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame being taxed in the hands of the assessee to which it actually belonged. It follows that the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Manilal Gafoorbhai Shah v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 624, of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Pd. and Sons v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 657 and Pioneer Trading Syndicate v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 5 [FB], and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Samrathmal Santoshchand [1980] 124 ITR 297, which lay down the true scope of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme under s. 24 of the Act, must be upheld. The decisions of the Delhi High, Court in Rattan Lal v. ITO [1975] 98 ITR 681 and Shakuntla Devi v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 18 and of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Mohd. Ahsan Wani v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 84, taking a view to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
