9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets i.e., land and buildings totally valued at Rs. 33,85,000, but did not pay the tax on the assets so disclosed. Based on the information received, the Assessing Officer reopened the proceedings under section 147 and issued notice under section 148 dated 24-3-2005. The assessee had, in response to notice under section 148, filed a revised return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 on 20-7-2005 declaring the total income of Rs. 36,30,843 which included the additional income of Rs. 33,85,000 under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, which was subject to a note annexed. The computation of income as per page 3 of the assessment order is extracted for ready reference:- COMPUTATION OF INCOME "Net income as per Original return shown (i) House property 237,236.00 (ii) Other sources 8,610.00 245,846.00 ----------- Additional Declaration income under section 69 of the Act 3,385,000.00 ------------ Total 3,630,846.00 Add: Agricultural income 60,000.00 ------------ Gross Total income 3,690,846.00 Income rounded up 3,690,850.00 ------------ Please note that this return of Income-tax, I am revising only because I have made a declaration voluntarily before the CIT that I have e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -------------------------------------------- 3. Rs. 3,23,000 1985-86 -do- -do- 3,23,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Rs. 3,23,000 1986-87 -do- -do- 3,23,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Rs. 4,72,000 1987-88 -do- -do- 4,72,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Rs. 2,14,000 1988-89 (i) building -do- 73,600 (ii) building Parara- 47,800 tibia S. Mhatre (iii)building Parasha- 47,600 ram S. Mharte (iv) vehicle Shankar 45,000 R. Mhatre ------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Rs. 19,000 1989-90 -do- Shankar 19,000 Raghunath Mhatre ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Rs. 4,07,000 1990-91 -do- -do- 3,92,000 Income - - 15,000 from house property ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Rs. 45,000 1991-92 -do- Shankar 5,000 -do- R.Mhatre. 40,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Rs.3,05,000 1992-93 -do- -do- 2,40,000 -do- 65,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11. Rs. 90,000 1993-94 -do- -do- 5,000 -d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year. Even otherwise, the addition cannot be sustained under section 69 of the Act, as for invoking section 69, the primary requirement is that investments had to be made by the assessee in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year. None of the investments in this case were made in the immediately preceding assessment year. Neither the income was earned in this case, nor the investment has been made in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year. Thus, we have to necessarily delete the above addition on the ground that the income sought to be added does not pertain to the impugned accounting year. 7. On the issue of the assessee filing a conditional revised return, we are of the considered opinion that the same cannot be held against the assessee. As earlier stated, the assessee had clearly given a note that he has earned and invested those funds in the earlier years, i.e., not in the impugned financial year, and also brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the orders in question may be beyond the limitation period prescribed in the Act. Thus, filing of return of income was under protest and without prejudice to his rights an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the points urged by the learned Attorney General in support of the petition, it would be convenient if we narrate briefly the history of the levy of this tax.' The Supreme Court, thus, held that acquiescence to an illegal tax for a long time is not a ground for denying the party the relief that he is entitled to." The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. D.K.B. & Co. [2000] 243 ITR 618 had held that it is a well-settled proposition in law that there cannot be estoppel against the statute. At page 625 it is held as follows:- "It is the settled position in law that there cannot be estoppel against a statute. There is no provision in the statute which permits a compromise assessment. The above position was indicated by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal [1999] 238 ITR 461. It cannot be laid down as a principle of universal application that whenever an assessment has been completed by accepting the offer of an assessee, no penalty can be imposed." The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) v. WTO [2003] 262 ITR 633 held as follows:- "4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In our view whether a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
