9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me loose papers were found which contained certain notings. During the course of search statement of Shri Jayantilal Tribhovandas, son of the partner Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas, was recorded on 9th May, 1984. It is pertinent to note that no search was conducted at the premises of the assessee. The firm is constituted of four partners out of which only two were raided. The assessee-firm declared the amounts of Rs. 42,639 and Rs. 91,480 for asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively on the basis of notings on the loose papers found at the residential premises of Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas, a partner, in the revised returns and claimed the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985. The AO assessed the aforesaid two amounts but refused the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf Ors. vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (Cal) 330 : (1995) 211 ITR 562 (Cal), the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ramchandran Co. vs. ITO (1994) 120 CTR (Ker) 304 : (1994) 209 ITR 982 (Ker) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Ilaxi Textiles Industries (1994) 49 TTJ (Ahd) 491 : (1994) 49 ITD 330 (Ahd). 5. Shri K.C. Patel, the learned counsel for the assessee, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was no search and seizure operation at the premises of the assessee. The assessee-firm is constituted of four partners but only two of the partners were raid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten by him. Thereafter, no investigation/inquiry was conducted till 31st March, 1987, when the assessee-firm filed the revised returns under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985, which was in operation. It is significant to note that no investigation/inquiry was conducted in the intervening period of about three years either in the case of the partner at whose residence search was conducted nor in the case of the firm and accordingly it is held that the revised returns were not prompted by the investigation that was going on. As will be apparent from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf relied upon by both the parties before us, the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that merely seizure of papers cannot mean dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the AO admittedly had no idea as to whether the seized papers would reveal any concealment. The mere fact that the petitioner 196 'appellant's case was awaiting a probe with reference to his past records as well as extrinsic sources could not lead to his ouster from the scope of the scheme." The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has further relied on the answer 19 of the CBDT Circular No. 451 in para 14 of the judgment, has mentioned as under: "It is an admitted fact that the assessee disclosed fully and truly his income and wealth in such revised returns and had also paid taxes in due time as provided under the amnesty scheme. Since the Department had not looked into the seized papers and had not carried out investigation prior to 31st M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the learned CIT(A) that the assessee's case is covered under the answer to question No. 7 of the CBDT Circular No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986 reproduced at page 2 above. Coming to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ramchandran Co. relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, we find that the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the case before the Kerala High Court, the return of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was due on 31st July, 1984, but the petitioner sought for extension of time till 31st March, 1985, and filed the return one year later on 31st March, 1986, disclosing a total income of Rs. 4,43,370. The ITO started investigation on receipt of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue had proceeded further, and had reached to a stage where concealment by the assessee had been detected and various statements of third parties to justify the same had also been recorded. Further, one of the technical third party, who had given statement against the assessee was also cross-examined by the partner of the assessee-firm. Subsequently, after the cross-examination on the date fixed for the next hearing of the case, neither the assessee nor his authorised representative appeared before the AO. Thereafter, the assessee-firm filed a revised return disclosing additional income referable to the enquiry in question under the Amnesty Scheme. For this very reason, subsequent filing of a revised return by the assessee-firm sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
