9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest u/s 139(8) and u/s 215 on the erroneous ground that the revised return filed by the assessee was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme. During the course of hearing the Bench pointed out to the assessee that the grounds of appeal taken were argumentative and accordingly the assessee filed the following revised grounds of appeal : 1. That the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the revised return furnished by the assessee-appellant surrendering the sum of Rs. 80,730 was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme as such he was not justified in not cancelling the charging of interest u/ss 139(8) and 215 of the I.T. Act. 2. That even if it were to be presumed that the revised return was not covered under the Amnesty Scheme, the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 79,118 made by the IAC(A) by ignoring the revised return as the addition is illegal and unwarranted. 3. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO may not supply copies of documents and statements relied upon by him and by not making the person making the statement available for cross-examination, had flouted all principles of equity natural justice. The addition of Rs. 79,118 is b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 25-3-1986 by surrendering an amount of Rs. 80,730 on account-of the alleged difference in the expenditure incurred at Hotel Taj Mahal, New Delhi and paid a sum of Rs. 54,493 as income-tax as per the revised return on the amount surrendered and handed over a letter dated 25-3-1986 to the CIT along with a copy of the tax payment challan requesting that the benefits of Amnesty Scheme may be allowed to the assessee and the prosecution launched already may be withdrawn. However, since the prosecution was not withdrawn the assessee wrote several letters to the CIT, Jalandhar and the CBDT, which were not replied. Subsequently the AO passed the order dated 29-1-1987 making an addition of Rs. 79,118 as income from undisclosed sources on account of unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the marriage of his daughter at Taj Mahal Hotel. The AO also charged interest u/s 139(8) and u/s 215 holding that the case of the assessee is not covered under the Amnesty Scheme. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of AO vide order dt. 16-3-1989. 7. The assessee also filed petition under section 273A before the CIT, Jalandhar on 17-3-1987 which is still pending. 8. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Asst. Year under consideration was pending and as such the assessee has filed revised return adding the income surrendered and paying tax and wrote to the AO along with evidence in the form of challan for payment of tax. It was pleaded that it was only on account of investigation in the case of Taj Mahal Hotel that the department came to the conclusion that the assessee might have concealed income and as such the case of the assessee was also covered by answer to question No. 7. It was submitted that the word 'detection' has not been defined in the Income-tax Act but was clarified in the answer to question No. 19 to the extent that if the AO has already found material to show that there has been concealment that would mean that the department has detected the concealment. However, if the AO had only prima facie belief that would not mean that the concealment has been detected. From the above, Sh. Sud submitted that no doubt the Survey Party of the department has found certain Bills regarding the expenditure incurred on the Banquet Halls on the date of marriage of the assessee's daughter but this did not mean that there was no other marriage performed on that date and the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not entitled to the benefits of Amnesty Scheme as the department has already detected concealment by the assessee in the form of unexplained expenditure on the marriage of his daughter performed on 17-2-1984 as the Deptt. has already launched prosecution proceedings against the assessee u/s 276(C) for attempt to evade tax. Sh. Makkar accordingly supported the order of the CIT(A). 12. We have considered the rival submissions. In the instant case, it is apparent from the perusal of the facts that the assessee-appellant surrendered an amount of Rs. 80,730 on account of unexplained expenditure in connection with the marriage of his daughter only after the survey party found evidence of actual expenditure having been incurred by the assessee being much more than the one reflected in the books of account. It is also equally true that the assessee made such a surrender under the fear that after the survey conducted by the Survey Party at Hotel Taj Mahal, New Delhi, the unexplained expenditure by the asessee was likely to be detected. However, it is also not a disputed fact that the assessee had furnished return for the asst. year under consideration showing the amount of Rs. 80,370 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was not filed within the specified time under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act or section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 immunity would not be extended to penal consequences of late filing of the return. Therefore, such strict compliance expected for Asst. year 1986-87 is not specified for the returns relating to earlier years. This is a reasonable inference that can be drawn from the Circular issued by the CBDT. The order issued by the Member Investigation CBDT, New Delhi in F. No. 281/8/86-IT(Inv. III) dated 14-2-1986 directed the Assessing Authorities not to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty or impose penalty for default under section 271(1) or 273 in respect of Asst. years up to and inclusive of Asst. year 1985-86 if they were satisfied that prior to the detection of concealment of income the assessee voluntarily and in good faith made full and true disclosure of income between the period 15-11-1985 to 31-3-1987 and paid the taxes due on the income disclosed. 15. From the above, it is clear that the question as to whether the benefit of Amnesty Scheme is available to the assessee or not will depend upon the fact whether the department has detected c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act was considered by the Tribunal in the case of WTO v. Nand Kumar Pd. Shah [1992] 41 ITD 406 (Pat.) relating to Asst. years 1976-77 to 1982-83 wherein it is held that the Amnesty Scheme was intended to encourage a defaulting assessee to come forward to pay tax, and have a clear slate without being penalised for defaults... The words suo nwtu and expression 'detection by the department' were used relating to cases of penalties under section 18(1)(c) to convey that benefit of Scheme would be available when concealment or suppression of assets would be discovered through raids or other efforts of the department. To avoid discovery of assets, the assessee was asked to avail benefit of Scheme within the stipulated time irrespective of what had happened in the past. The condition required was to disclose true wealth and pay taxes within the stipulated time. Circular No. 439, dated 15-11-1985 is to be considered in a liberal manner and not as a technical person with expert knowledge would do. The Circular was meant for common taxpayer and should be viewed from his angle. The Amnesty Scheme is not to be read as a stature; its object to encourage the defaulting assessees to come forwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
