- (1.) The respondent was represented by Mr. M.N. Sharma, advocate. On the death of the said advocate, notice was sent to the respondent apprising him of the said fact and asking him to make alternate arrangement. The letter has come back with the endorsement left. This was in January, 1995. We treat it as sufficient service and proceed with the matter.
(2.) This appeal is preferred against the order of the Delhi High Court rejecting the application of the revenue filed u/s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The question which the revenue wanted to be referred by the Tribunal reads thus : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the cash credit amounting to Rs. 25,000.00 stood explained in view of the disclosure made by the creditors u/s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 Is the order of the Tribunal not vitiated in view of the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(3.) It is now brought to our notice that this very question has since been decided by this Court in ITO V/s. Rattan Lal, 1984 145 ITR 183. In the said decision, it has been held that the immunity enjoyed by a declarant u/s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme is confined to the declarant alone and is not extended to the assessment of a third party, the assessee in relation to the income disclosed by the declarant. It was further held that there is nothing in Sec. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act which prevents the ITO, if he is not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee about the genuineness of sources of amounts found credited in his books, to add them to the assessees income amount in spite of these having already been made the subject-matter of the declaration made by the depositors/creditors. He is entitled to include them as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.;