9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee claimed that he had earned a taxable income from asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86, which according to him was disclosed in good faith under the Amnesty Scheme and paid the tax thereon. Further the case of the assessee was that out of undisclosed income of earlier years, Rs. 1 lakh was introduced in bank account under the name of taking gift from non-resident external account of Shri Ramniklal Narandas Patel of USA. For arranging the same the assessee paid Rs. 11,800 as commission to Shri V.C. Shroff. Therefore, the assessee claimed the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme and requested that his returns should be accepted under the said scheme. The AO held that the assessee was involved in bogus havala entries racket unearthed in September, 1986. According to the AO the assessee had handed over Rs. 1 lakh to Shri V.C. Shroff for purchasing demand draft from Bank of Baroda, Navasari Branch. The said draft was enclosed with a letter from one Shri Ramniklal N. Patel of USA stating that he had given gift of Rs. 1 lakh. The AO was of the view that the said draft was obtained out of his non-resident external account which was supported by bogus bank certificate. The draft amount of Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefits of Amnesty Scheme were not available to the assessee. According to the learned counsel in assessee's case, no survey or search operation was conducted by the Revenue authorities. Even no notice or letter under the provisions of IT Act was issued to the assessee. No concealment of income was detected by the Department before filing the return of income. According to him the assessee had made full and true disclosure of his income in the returns submitted by him. The return was filed voluntarily. The learned counsel for the assessee specifically pointed out that the AO was not correct while observing that enquiries were conducted by the DDI against the assessee. According to the learned counsel this observation of the AO is factually incorrect and there is no material on record to substantiate the said contention of the AO. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee had filed his return of income, during the period when Amnesty Scheme of 1985 was in force and in view of various circulars issued by the CBDT under the said Scheme, the AO was not justified in initiating penalty proceedings under ss. 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(1)(b) of the Act. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentative relied on the orders of the authorities below. While supporting the reasons for making the addition it was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the returns filed by the assessee for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1986-87 could not be treated as furnished before detection by the Department. According to him in the instant case, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted, particularly when the disclosure made by the assessee was neither suo motu nor prior to the detection by the Revenue. Therefore, the assessee is also not entitled to the immunities declared through various circulars issued by the CBDT under the Amnesty Scheme of 1985. In fact, when the Department conducted the search at the premises of Shri V.C. Shroff and A.L. Ghael it came to the knowledge of the Revenue that there was a racket which was involved in conversion of substantial amount of black money to white money by issuing bogus bank drafts, etc. Both Shri V.C. Shroff and A.L. Ghael were collusively acting on behalf of the assessee to abate the offences of concealment of income and, therefore, the search conducted by the Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full disclosure of his income, would be entitled to immunity under those circulars. 12. It is pertinent to state that various circulars issued by the CBDT under the Amnesty Scheme require that such returns should be furnished voluntarily and in good faith and the disclosure of income should be full and true. In the instant case, the assessee filed returns of income from asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1986-87 on 23rd Feb., 1987, voluntarily under the Amnesty Scheme and paid the tax on his concealed income. It is also evident from the petition filed before the CIT, Surat, wherein the assessee admitted that he had taken bogus gift of Rs. 1 lakh out of concealed income from asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1984-85. There is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that though the assessee wanted to evade tax and so he had arranged for bogus gift but because of introduction of Amnesty Scheme he voluntarily furnished his returns covering his concealed income for all the above assessment years from which gift draft of Rs. 1 lakh was taken. There is no denying the fact that the assessee had paid tax payable as per his returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme. Furthermore the AO wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
