ANISA BANO MST Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 912 of 1987 (Mst. Hamidabano v. ITO), Miscellaneous Petition No. 915 of 1987 (Mst. Hamidabano v. ITO), Miscellaneous Petition No. 918 of 1987 (Mst. Rashidabano v. ITO) and Miscellaneous Petition No. 920 of 1987 (Mst. Mariyambai v. ITO). The question of law involved in all these petitions being the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts leading to these petitions, in short, are that the petitioner, Mst. Anisa Bano, was assessed to income-tax in respect of her returns filed by her for the assessment years 1983-84 till 1986-87 under the Amnesty Scheme before the Income-tax Officer, M-Ward, Indore. THE Income-tax Officer who had the jurisdiction in the matter passed the assessment orders for the aforesaid years under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and all demands thereto have been paid by the petitioner. THE returns filed by the petitioner were accepted by the Income-tax Officer without any variation. THE petitioner, for the assessment year 1983-84, had shown balance in the capital account at Rs. 87,200, for the assessment year 1984-85 Rs. 1,10,200, for the assessment year 1985-86 Rs. 1,33,500 and for the assessment year 1986-87 Rs. 1,58,700.

(3.) IN the return filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is not disputed that the petitioner had filed the returns for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 and the source of income was admitted on the basis of the returns filed by the petitioner. It is also not denied that the returns were filed under the Amnesty Scheme before the INcome-tax Officer, M-Ward, INdore, and that the income shown by the petitioner for the assessment years 1983-84 till 1986-87 has been assessed under the Amnesty Scheme. It is also admitted that a prohibitory order in respect of the bank account of the petitioner was issued to the bank in view of the fact that the petitioner could not prove the source of the deposit and the deposit was treated as unexplained investment of the husband of the petitioner. It was denied that the amount in the name of the petitioner is the exclusive income of the petitioner and that the other persons have no relation whatsoever with it. As regards the passing of order under Section 132(5) of the INcome-tax Act, the respondents state that such an order is not required to be passed since no assets were seized from the possession of the petitioner. The account in the name of the petitioner has simply been prohibited as, in fact, the account belongs to the husband of the petitioner. It has further been averred that as the petitioner could not explain the source of the deposit either during the raid proceedings or subsequently in her statement recorded by the INcome-tax Officer under Section 131 of the INcome-tax Act, the deposit was found to be the concealed income of her husband and, therefore, the respondents were justified in issuing the prohibitory order in respect of the account which stood in the name of the petitioner in the Canara Bank.