TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee in ITA No. 812 is a registered firm consisting of three partners. The firm is engaged in purchase and sale of aluminium angles, rounds etc. It is also a distributor for Tata Chemicals and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30-1-1986 disclosing an income of Rs. 8,15,054. However, before the assessment could be completed, the assessee submitted a revised return on 25-11-1986 disclosing an income of Rs. 8,77,550. In part I of the revised return, the assessee had stated as under :---- " Revised return declaring higher income filed under Voluntary Disclosure/Amnesty Scheme vide Press Note of the CBDT and Circulars on this subject beg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y at Rs. 24,624 and Rs. 12,019. The CIT(Appeals) decided the matter in favour of the assessee and gave a finding that the return filed by the assessee was under the Amnesty Scheme and following CBDT Instruction No. 1720, dated 29-7-1986, vacated the levy of interest. 4. The Revenue has come up in appeal before us. The first issue agitated by the Revenue is regarding the deletion of interest under sections 139(8) and 217. It has been strongly argued by the learned departmental representative, Sri Vasant Kumar that the CIT(Appeals) ought not to have entertained the appeal against the quantum of levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(Appeals) erred in entertaining the appeal accepting the assessee's gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d returns were under the Amnesty Scheme and since the Revenue has taken no ground, it is clear that the Revenue has accepted the returns as under the Amnesty Scheme. Since the Revenue has accepted the returns as under the Amnesty Scheme, there is no question of charging interest under sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaikishan Gopikishan Sons v. CIT [ 1989] 178 ITR 481, relevant at page 487. 6. The learned counsel also argues that the appeals against the levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 are maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the CIT(Appeals). He also points out t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f interest under sections 139(8) and 217. 8. The next ground of the Revenue is very interesting and thought-provoking. The ground reads as under :----- " The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 217 with reference to the income originally returned is not saved by the revised return even if it is filed under 'Amnesty Scheme', since amnesty covers only the additional income and waiver of interest, if any, would apply only to the additional income declared in the fresh return. " The learned departmental representative, Sri Vasant Kumar, points out that the returns of income originally filed by the assessee were beyond the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully discloses the concealed income or wealth and pays the taxes on such concealed income or wealth before the stipulated date. In case the assessment in the case of a taxpayer had already been completed, such an assessee could file the return of income disclosing concealed income or wealth which was to be regularised by the Income-tax Department by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. If the assessment in the case of an assessee was pending, such an assessee was required to file a revised return disclosing the concealed income or wealth. Such a return, however, should be filed before the Assessing Officer had detected the concealment. If an assessee complied with the conditions laid down under the Scheme, immunity from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10,000 only. By showing the nominal additional income, the assessees, in our view, have made an attempt to evade the interest to the extent of Rs. 1,41,716 under section 139(8) and Rs. 42,687 under section 217(1A) in the first case and Rs. 24,624 under section 139(8) and Rs. 12,019 under section 217(1A) in the second case. In our view the Amnesty Scheme did not provide for this type of eventuality. The assessees have filed the returns originally and were liable to levy of interest on such original returns under the provisions of sections 139(8) and 217. The default was, therefore, committed at the time of filing the original returns. 12. The CIT(Appeals) has given relief to the assessees on the basis of Instruction No. 1720, dated 29-7- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
