9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescribed under the Amnesty Scheme. 3. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the documents placed on record. It is obvious from record that a notice under section 148 was issued on 2-12-1986 for filing the return of income and in response to that the assessee sought extension of time for filing the same upto 28-2-1987 but his request was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 8-1-1987 and he issued a statutory notice under section 142(1) fixing the case for hearing on 26-3-1987. The assessee ultimately filed a return on 31-3-1987 appending a note that the return has been filed under the Amnesty Scheme. The claim of the assessee that a return has been fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee cannot be deprived from the benefit of Amnesty Scheme only for the simple reason that the return was filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgments-- (i) Malhar Rao Tatya Saheb Holdar v. ITO [1995] 54 ITD 562 (Ind.) (ii) Anand Kumar Saraf v. CIT [1995] 211 ITR 562 (Cal.) (iii) Jaikishan Gopikishan & Sons v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 481 (MP) (iv) CIT v. Hassomal [1996] 217 ITR 636 (MP) (v) Smt. Manormadevi Agrawal v. CWT [1996] 223 ITR 435/88 Taxman 311 (MP) (vi) 162 ITR pages 17 and 57 (St.). 5. From a careful perusal of these judgments and the CBDT Circulars and the letter issued by the Assessing Officer in which he frankly admitted that the notice und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief were furnished to the assessee. Even before us the revenue could not put-forth the case that after recording the reasons for the belief that the income had escaped the assessment, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 147 of the Act and issued a notice under section 148 to the assessee for filing of the return of income. It has been specifically held by this Bench in the case of Malhar Rao Tatya Saheb Holdar after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Johrilal (HUF) v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 439 that the formation of required belief by the Assessing Officer before the proceedings can be validly initiated under section 147 of the Act is a condition precedent. The fulfilment of this conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence of such belief could not deprive the assessee of the right to claim the immunity and benefits given under the Amnesty Scheme provided the assessee disclosed his true income and wealth in the revised return and paid taxes based on such revised returns in due time, as prescribed in the Amnesty Scheme. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt Manoramadevi Agrawal v. CIT in which the High Court has held that the object behind the Amnesty Scheme was to induce persons to make disclosures and start paying the taxes without apprehension of facing prosecutions and suffering penalties. The undernoted factors are relevant in such matters. (a) The assessee makes full and true disclosure volunta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
