9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the return filed by the assessee was under the Amnesty Scheme or in response to a notice under section 148 of the Act. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1985-86. The primary issue raised by the assessee was that the return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme, while the authorities contended it was in response to a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee, which was upheld by the CIT (Appeals). The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was routine and did not deprive them of the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. They highlighted that no reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing the notice, as required by law. The assessee also cited various judgments to support their claim. The Tribunal examined the CBDT Circulars and the letter from the Assessing Officer, which indicated that the return was filed within the extended period of the Amnesty Scheme. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory requirement for the Assessing Officer to have a valid belief before initiating proceedings under section 147. They referred to previous judgments to support the importance of fulfilling this condition. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings under section 147 were not initiated in accordance with the law, and the notice under section 148 was vitiated. They held that the return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme and directed the Assessing Officer to treat it as such for framing the assessment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on these findings. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal did not address the other grounds raised by the assessee, as the primary issue regarding the filing of the return under the Amnesty Scheme was sufficient to allow the appeal.
|
