9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concealed income under section 14(1), including the share income received from the firm of Ramjidas Babulal in all the relevant years and hence the ITO should not add the firm's share all over again. There is no provision in the Act to tax the same amount twice. The assessee had disclosed a total amount of Rs. 2,12,934 for all the relevant years under consideration under section 14(1) and this amount included his concealed income received from the firm, i.e., Rs. 28,760. The case of the assessee was that the ITO cannot tax the same amount, i.e., Rs. 28,760, twice and claimed that he should not tax the same amount again, under the order under section 143(3) read with section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). According to the assessee, the ITO has neither the power nor discretion to reduce the income disclosed under the VDS Act. The assessee has disclosed a total amount, which includes the share income from the firm in consequence of the disclosure by the firm. This contention did not find favour with the ITO and he rejected the same. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC. Before the AAC, the assessee reiterated the arguments advanced before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the amounts involved in the relevant years are doubly taxed or taxed twice by the ITO. The assessee is the partner in the firm of Ramjidas Babulal. A search was carried out under section 132 of the Act, at the premises of the firm and its partners including the assessee. Subsequently, the firm as well as the partners filed declaration under section 14(1) and the assessee disclosed all the concealed income of Rs. 2,12,943 which includes the concealed income received from the firm and for clarifying this position footnotes were added in the disclosure stating that the assessee has declared the concealed income, including the concealed income received from the firm of Ramjidas Babulal in the relevant years. Similarly, in the disclosure of the firm it was stated vide the footnotes that the partners should be given immunity to the extent of their shares in the above income declared and such type of notes can be given to explain the facts of the case in Form B under column 7 relating to remarks. Shri Talati further submitted that the full descriptions in view of Form B, of the concealed income was given in accordance with the columns under column B (sic). When there was a settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Asst. Yr. Income decla- Income decla- Income claimed red by firm red by assessee as double taxed --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1968-69 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 7,000 Rs. 1,667 1969-70 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 7,000 Rs. 1,667 1970-71 Rs. 10,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 1,667 1971-72 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 2,500 1972-73 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 2,500 1973-74 Rs. 20,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 2,500 1974-75 Rs. 40,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 5,000 1975-76 Rs. 40,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 5,000 1976-77 Rs. 50,000 Rs. 28,420 Rs. 6,250 The claim of the assessee was that there has been double taxation in respect of his proportionate share of disclosure in the case of the firm to the extent of the amounts mentioned in column 4 of the above table. The submission of the assessee's counsel was that the proportionate share of the disclosed income by the said firm stood included in the amounts of disclosure made by the assessee and included in his return of income and that the ITO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the income of the firm which was returned and assessed in the regular assessment under section 143(3) and the concealed income from the firm was included in the disclosure made by the assessee. Similar note was given by the firm in its disclosure, wherein it was claimed that the partners of the firm should be given immunity to the extent of their share in the above income declared. The view taken by Shri Kathuria was that the word 'immunity' has only a limited meaning and 'immunity' means immunity from penalty and prosecution, as used in section 16. We are unable to agree again with Shri Kathuria because the word 'immunity' should not be taken in the limited meaning which is used in the VDS Act. The word 'immunity' is not defined in the VDS Act or the Income-tax Act. When the word is not defined in either of those two Acts, the meaning should be given which is understood in common parlance. The dictionary meaning given to the word 'immunity' in the Oxford Dictionary, and Law Lexicon, includes exemption from taxation, freedom from public service, exemption from obligation, exemption or lease from any change, etc. Apart from this, their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17,000 were concerned, the amount was explained. That has no relevance to the year under consideration. In view of the above facts, in short, the disclosure made under section 14(1) is different from that made under section 3(1). Under section 14(1), the ITO has to examine the disclosure, with reference to the various assets which have been found during the course of the search under section 132 and there is no bar when the assessee includes the undisclosed income received from the firm in the relevant years. The assessee has disclosed the total income on oath. Therefore, it should be taken that he has disclosed the total income including his proportionate share from the firm and the total amount which was disclosed by the assessee was determined by the ITO under section 132(5). In fact, the undisclosed income of the firm is the undisclosed income of the respective partners in their profit-sharing ratio. It is thus the undisclosed income of the firm which has come to the partner and which has been invested by him in various assets. Therefore, in our view, the assessee is entitled to the relief which he has claimed in his returns to the extent of the amounts which represented his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
