9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / Assessee under Sections 234-A, 234-B and 234-C of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 1993 - 1994 and 1994 - 1995 respectively. 2.The relevant observations made by the Learned Single Judge in the impugned order read as under - "9.The second ground taken by the petitioner was that the delay in filing the Return was on account of unavoidable circumstances, as he bona fidely believe, that the gift received from the Non Resident Indian was not taxable. It was subsequently, on coming to know, that it may not be possible for him, to prove the genuineness of the gift, that Revised Returns were filed, by adding the gift, as taxable income. It was submitted by the petitioner, that before filing the Revised Return, the petitioner had approac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner was that the case of the petitioner did not fall in the first clause, and as regards the second situation was concerned, there was no material placed on record, which could lead to a conclusion, that the petitioner was prevented from filing the Return due to unavoidable circumstances. A finding was also recorded, that the Return was not filed voluntarily, as it was filed only after issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, by contending, that the finding recorded by the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy, that there is no discretion with him, to determine the matter beyond the parameters of CBDT cannot be sustained in law, in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48 of the Act, was served on the petitioner only on 24.07.1996. 16.There is also force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the notice was to take effect from the date of service, and not from the date of issuance of Notice. Though the Notice was dated 26.06.1996, it was served only on 24.07.1996 ie., after the petitioner had already filed Returns voluntarily, and therefore, the Revised Returns were required to be treated voluntarily. 17.The impugned order cannot also be sustained for the reason, that the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has not considered the stand taken by the petitioner, that the gift of Non Resident Indian was not included, as the goods were excluded in case the source could be ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gift, as it was shown even in the Original Return filed. 21.This contention again cannot be accepted, as a positive finding is required to be given on the facts, as to whether the petitioner was justified in excluding this amount, as it is not disputed, that the gift from Non Resident Indian was exempted from taxable income, subject to proving of the source, and its genuineness. This question was required to be determined by the competent authority, and cannot left to presumptions. 22.Therefore, for the reasons stated herein above, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the cases are remitted back to the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy to reconsider the question of waiver, or reduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
