TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. On 12-5-1981, the Income-tax Department Officials conducted search operations at the premises of one Shri Naraindas Gattani (Now late), who was the father of the first two partners of the firm, and seized certain documents pertaining to the firm wherein some daily transactions were recorded. Similar search conducted in the premises of first two partners of the firm and the premises of the firm, which were without any seizure. 3. It appears that the assessee-firm subsequent to this had filed revised returns on 31st March, 1986 showing higher income and making full disclosure for the aforesaid assessment years claiming the same as filed under 'Amnesty' in pursuant to CBDT Circular No. 451 dated 17-2-1986. On 15-3-1988, the revenue served a notice under section 148 on the assessee-firm. Thereafter the assessment was completed on 16-8-1988 under section 143(3)/147. Thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated against the firm for contravening the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reply by the assessee was not accepted. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of seizure. The word 'detection' means to uncover, expose out, to discover or to find out. In the present case, there was seizure of documents from a third party, who is not connected with the business of the assessee-firm. Even though the documents were seized on 12-5-1981, the notice under section 148 was served on the assessee on 15-3-1988 which is almost seven years after the seizure. During this period, admittedly the revenue had not proceeded against the assessee based on the seized documents. However, in the meantime the assessee had filed revised returns on 31-3-1986. Here again it is relevant to note that the notice under section 148 was issued almost after a lapse of two years from the date of filing of the revised returns. On scrutiny of the records of these appeals, quite surprisingly, we find that the original assessments for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed on 8-3-1982 and 19-2-1983 respectively which is after the seizure on 12-5-1981. All the aforesaid facts show that the revenue had no knowledge at all about the contents of the documents seized. In other words, it can be said that the contents of the documents were not discovered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lief that would not mean concealment has been detected. " This clarification fully supports the case of the assessee that there was no detection by the revenue at all till the revised returns were filed on 31-3-1986. Considering all the facts and the totality of the circumstances of this case we have no hesitation in holding that there was no detection at all by the revenue prior to 31-3-1986. 9. Let us now examine the Question whether the benefit of Amnesty Scheme is available to the assessee. The Scheme of Amnesty was issued by the CBDT on 17-2-1986. The assessee filed the revised returns on 30-3-1986 with specific claim of protection under the scheme. The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim. The ld. D.R. supported the order of the Assessing Officer. The ld. D.R. submitted that the matter is covered under Question No. 12 of the said circular and, therefore, benefit of Amnesty Scheme is not available to the assessee. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter is covered under Question Nos. 7 and 30 of the circular. They are reproduced below for better appreciation :-- " Question No. 7 : Where the investigation in the case of persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detection at all prior to 31-3-1986. The assessee made the disclosure of income in the revised returns by 31-3-1986. This fact is not disputed by the revenue. Therefore, under these circumstances, the assessee is protected under Question No. 7 and the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme is available to the assessee. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Ahmedabad 'B' Bench of ITAT in the case of Prakash Oil Industries Ginning Factory, wherein it has been held that "revenue not having taken any steps to prove concealment in regard to amount depicted in the loose paper seized during search for about two years after the such search and the assessee having offered the amount for taxation under the Amnesty Scheme, the disclosure was before any detection and the assessee was entitled to benefits of the Amnesty Scheme in respect of whole amount offered. " 13. In this case, relied on by the counsel, the seizure of documents were effected from the accountant of the assessee-firm. But in the instant case, the recovery was made from father of the partners of the assessee-firm. There was nothing to show that Shri Naraindas Gattani has connection with the firm either d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
