TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 991] 192 ITR 487), was recalled and the matter was heard again on March 18, 1993. It is submitted by Mr. Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel, that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of dry cleaning, at Jaipur. The business premises of the petitioner were surveyed under section 133A of the Income-tax Act (for brevity, "the Act"), on September 7, 1979, and, on account of some incriminating documents/bill books and other material, the assessments for the assessment years, 1975-76 to 1979-80 were reopened under section 148 of the Act. While completing the fresh assessments under section 143(3)/148 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer rejected the books of account and applied the net profit rate of 25 per cent. on receipts disclosed by the assessee. These assessments were set aside by the Tribunal to the stage of filing the revised returns, vide its order dated May 30, 1986. In the revised returns of income-tax, for the abovementioned years, the petitioner disclosed its income by applying a net profit rate of 25 per cent. on the receipts, as held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the case of the assessee fox these very assessment years. These revised ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re filed by the petitioner, a scheme was introduced in terms of section 190 of the Act and various circulars were also issued in this connection. It is further submitted that the Chief Commissioner passed an order dated October 27/28, 1988, which was reproduced by the petitioner in para No. 14 of the writ petition and also placed on record by the respondents, in which it has been held that the matter of the petitioner is covered under the amnesty scheme and the assessments made for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81, on the basis of revised returns filed, are accordingly treated as covered under the amnesty scheme and the benefits of the amnesty provided under the scheme with regard to levy of interest and penalty are allowed. A direction was also given that the Commissioner of Income-tax may be informed accordingly for necessary action. It is, therefore, contended that non-petitioner No. 4 could not have issued the notices for imposing penalty and could not have passed the assessment order dated March 25, 1991, imposing penalty on the petitioner for the assessment years mentioned above. Learned counsel also referred to Circular No. 451, dated February 17, 1986, which clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, which is referred to in the order dated October 7, 1988, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, holding that the case is not covered under the amnesty scheme, was never conveyed to the petitioner, more so, it is pointed out that no appeal could be filed against the said order, therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Income-tax Officer when it came to know about this order. Therefore, I do not find any force in this objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. From the facts mentioned above, it is evident that the earlier orders passed by the Income-tax Officer were set aside to the stage of filing revised returns by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated May 30, 1986. Therefore, the petitioner has to file revised returns regarding the assessment years mentioned above. Before the petitioner filed revised returns, the amnesty scheme was introduced by the Revenue. The petitioner filed revised returns for the abovementioned assessment years by disclosing income and applying the net profit rate of 25 per cent. on the receipts as was held by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the position regarding penalty and prosecution, are as under: "Question No.4.-The income-tax circulars are not very clear as to whether the immunity from penalty and prosecution is guaranteed to the assessee unlike the circular in respect of wealth-tax which appears to be clear on this point? Answer.-The immunity from penalty and prosecution applies in all cases whether of income-tax or of wealth-tax where the assessee admits the truth and pays taxes properly. Question No. 5.-Has any time-limit within which the Commissioner of Income-tax would pass the order of waiver of penalty, interest, etc., been fixed? Answer.-Since the Income-tax Officers have been instructed not to initiate penalty proceedings and to be liberal in waiver of interest in such cases, the question of waiver by Commissioner of Income-tax does not arise. The Income-tax Officers are, however, being instructed to finalise waiver proceedings by April 30, 1986." Thus, it is clear from questions Nos, 4 and 5 and the answers given thereto that since the petitioner had truthfully disclosed its income and also paid taxes thereon within the prescribed time, the petitioner was immune from prosecution and penalty. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
