2004 (9) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was illegal? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the returns filed by the assessee were under amnesty scheme?" The assessee was assessed for the years 1978-79 to 1981-82. On January 21/22, 1986, a search operation as contemplated under section 132 of the Act, as it had its application in the year 1986, was carried out by the income-tax sleuths in the business and residential premises of the assessee. It is in this search operation, one diary was seized by the taxing authorities. This diary contained several information regarding substantial investment made by the assessee in the business of s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d not consider it proper to examine the other question as to whether the assessee could file returns under the amnesty scheme for the years in question and thus could claim immunity. It is against this order, the Revenue felt aggrieved and prayed for reference to be made to this court under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal though initially declined to accede to the prayer of the Revenue but later on being asked by this court under section 256(2) of the Act, made the reference to this court for answering aforementioned two questions of law. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Pyare Lal, learned counsel for non-applicant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts. We thus cannot countenance the view taken by the Tribunal. It is totally against the record and thus not legally sustainable. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is illegal. Instead, we answer question No. 1 by holding that the Assessing Officer was right in issuance of notices under section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, in our opinion, this question really does not arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal because even the Tribunal declined to examine this question. This is what the Tribunal observed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X