Decided on March 31,1982



Y.R. Meena, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE nine appeals and six cross-objections are filed by the revenue and the assessee respectively. The appeals are relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1976-77 while the cross-objections are relevant to the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76. In the appeals by the revenue the only question for our consideration in all the years is whether the AAC has erred, in law and on facts, in holding that the amount disclosed by the assessee under Section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme Act, 1975 ('the VDS Act'), should be reduced by his proportionate share in the amount disclosed by the firm, in which he is a partner, and whether he further erred in deleting the relevant amounts in question in all the years. As common grounds are involved in all these appeals and cross-objections, for the sake of convenience we dispose them of by this common order.
(2.) The assessee claimed before the ITO that he himself disclosed all the concealed income under Section 14(1), including the share income received from the firm of Ramjidas Babulal in all the relevant years and hence the ITO should not add the firm's share all over again. There is no provision in the Act to tax the same amount twice. The assessee had disclosed a total amount of Rs. 2,12,934 for all the relevant years under consideration under Section 14(1) and this amount included his concealed income received from the firm, i.e., Rs. 28,760. The case of the assessee was that the ITO cannot tax the same amount, i.e., Rs. 28,760, twice and claimed that he should not tax the same amount again, under the order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). According to the assessee, the ITO has neither the power nor discretion to reduce the income disclosed under the VDS Act. The assessee has disclosed a total amount, which includes the share income from the firm in consequence of the disclosure by the firm. This contention did not find favour with the ITO and he rejected the same. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the AAC. Before the AAC, the assessee reiterated the arguments advanced before the ITO. The AAC remanded the matter to the ITO by a remand order dated 30-12-1978, directing the ITO to report whether the claim regarding double taxation was made before him and if so with what result. The ITO sent a remand report and in the said report, he stated that claim was made by the assessee for immunity in respect of tax relevant to the share from the firm but the said claim was rejected because there was no provision in the VDS Act which empowers the ITO to reduce the share of the firm. After considering the remand report as well as the facts and arguments, the AAC came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that there is no double taxation of the same amount because this amount has been included in the income disclosed by the assessee as his proportionate share of income on reassessment in the case of the firm after the disclosure. The same amount has been taxed over again in the sense that the assets disclosed by the assessee were acquired out of the same undisclosed income of the firm in the relevant years. The AAC, therefore, directed the ITO to exclude the amounts mentioned in column 4 of the chart given in Para 2 of her order in the respective years. Being aggrieved by this order the revenue came in appeal before us. The assessee has filed cross-objections for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1975-76.
(3.) SHRI Kathuria, the learned departmental representative, submitted that under the VDS Act the assessee cannot put any condition in the form of footnotes, added in the disclosure in Form B and those notes do not make it clear that they are made for the purpose of exemption of the tax from the share of the firm. His next contention was that the description in the disclosure was not given in accordance with the columns of Form B. SHRI Kathuria contended that when the firm makes a disclosure the partners need not make their own disclosures under Section 14(1). He further argued that there was a discrepancy in the amount disclosed by one of the partners, viz., SHRI Bajranglal, and the share that comes to him from the firm. He further argued that Rs. 17,000 were seized at the time of a raid from the premises of the firm and that is not explained. In view of these facts, the claim of the assessee could not be allowed and the order of the AAC should be reversed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.