Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 149 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRestrictions on transfer of immovable property - benefit of scheme called "Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998" - immunity certificate in favour of the vendor towards full and final settlement of tax arrears - Held that:- A reply was sent by the vendor as well as the purchasers stating that each of the sale deed was executed in respect of the one-sixth of undivided share of the property for a consideration of ₹ 9,00,000. When the property purchased under each of the sale deed is ₹ 9 lakhs and it is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, they are not having any legal obligation to submit form 37-I of the Act. Conveniently, the Department has not taken any action on the basis of the reply submitted by the vendor as well as the purchasers to the show-cause notices issued by the Department till a certificate was issued to the vendor under the scheme. After eight months from the date of issuing the immunity certificate, prosecution came to be launched against the vendor and the purchasers. Therefore, it is very clear that the declaration, which has been filed by the vendor was in connection with and inclusive of the complaint complained in the show-cause notice, which emanated in the assessment proceedings, subsequent to the raid. When once the vendor submitted her application under the scheme and availed of the benefits thereof, including obtaining an immunity certificate, it also includes the violation which has been complained in the show-cause notice relating the the provisions contained under section 269UC of the Act. While so, is it not now open for the Department, at this stage, to say that the declaration is only pursuant to the order of assessment or payment of tax component and it does not form part of the declaration in so far as it relates to the violation under section 269UC of the Act. This court, in the writ petition filed by the vendor, has issued direction to the trial court to consider whether the immunity already granted to the vendor under the scheme was the subject matter of the complaint on its file or not. On such direction, the trial court rightly concluded that the immunity granted to the vendor covers the past transaction relating to the sale made by her which was the subject matter of the complaint before it. Further, this court once again directed the trial court by the order in the Criminal Original Petition once again directed the lower court to consider the petition filed by the respondents herein and to pass orders. Taking into consideration such direction issued by this court, the trial court passed the order under the direction and authority of this court. In any event, the trial court has rightly considered the issue as to whether the declaration also includes the proceedings contemplated under sections 269UC and 276AB of the Act and held in the affirmative. No reason to interfere with such well-considered order passed by the trial court.
|