9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd with interest of the seized amount. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding with block assessment under section 158BC. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioner is assessed to income-tax for the last 20 years. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS), a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition provided in section 64 that any person can make a declaration under section 65 of any income chargeable to tax for any assessment year mentioned in section 64(1). In case the declarant was a person other than a company or firm, the tax was to be charged at 30 per cent. of the voluntarily disclosed income. Section 64(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o search warrant against the petitioner nor was the petitioner resident of the premises where the search was being conducted, the amount of Rs. 6,10,000 was seized from him and he was allowed to carry the balance of Rs. 5,000. On October 18, 1997, the petitioner filed a declaration under section 65 of the Scheme along with the proof/challan showing deposit of Rs. 2,55,000 and sent it by post to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. It is alleged in para graph 13 of the petition that the voluntary disclosure of the petitioner was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut, and a certificate to this effect was granted to the petitioner under section 68(2) of the Scheme on November 7. 1997, vide annexure 2 to the petition. On Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the writ petition. The petitioner received notice dated October 29, 2001, under section 144A of the Income-tax Act for proceeding under sections 158BD and 158BC vide annexure 10 to the writ petition. On November 26, 2001, the petitioner gave a detailed reply stating that the amount under the voluntary disclosure cannot be assessed again in any other proceeding vide annexure 11 to the petition. However, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax vide letter dated December 12, 2001, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax directed respondent No. 3 to continue with the block assessment although there was no warrant of authorisation under section 132 against the petitioner. The true copy of the letter dated December 12, 2001 is anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o recorded. The petitioner stated therein that he had taken the money in question from Pradeep Gaur, chartered accountant, and he had come to the hotel to give it to Amarjeet Singh Lamba. When he was confronted with the sworn statement of his driver, he admitted that he had brought the money from his home and he had taken this money as loan from Amarjeet Singh Lamba 10-15 days ago and had come to return it. He refused to answer any further question and denied having any financial or business connection with Amarjeet Singh Lamba, despite the statement that he had taken the money from him. He also did not explain the nature of entries in the documents found from his possession and seized. Hence, the authorised officer was of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 158BD against the petitioner were initiated on February 3, 1999, by issuing the notice duly served on December 10, 1999, requiring him to file his return for the block period within 16 days and in compliance the petitioner filed the said return of income on January 31, 2000 at nil income. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit it is stated that the Assessing Officer completed the block assessment of the petitioner on December 18, 2001 well before the limitation expiring on December 31, 2001, at income of Rs. 8,65,000 on the basis of seized documents and other evidence. In paragraph 19 of the same it is stated that the petitioner obtained a certificate under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme fraudulently and hence respondent No. 2 brought th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 27 of the counter affidavit the department has admitted that the petitioner was not a resident of the search premises and no separate search warrant had been issued in his name. In our opinion, the petitioner did not suffer from the infirmity as contemplated under section 64 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, Scheme. In Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 627, the Supreme Court while interpreting an analogous provision of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme observed: "Once the declarant makes payment of the amount so determined under section 90, the immunity under section 91 springs into effect. We are also of the view that upon such declaration being made, tax arrears being determined, paid and certificate issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
