Y.R.Meena, J. - (1.) By this reference application under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the revised return filed by the assessee-company for the assessment year 1984-85 on September 12, 1986, could not be treated as disclosure of concealed or additional income and was not covered by the Amnesty scheme ?"
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company was not entitled to immunity from the levy of interest under Sections 139(8) and 215 and from the levy of penalty, under Section 275(1)(a) and the Income-tax Act, 1961, as envisaged under the Amnesty scheme ?" 2. The assessee is a limited company. It filed its return on November 29, 1985, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,69,100. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on September 12, 1986, declaring a total income of Rs. 11,77,590. The difference represented is an increase of the income by Rs. 8,488.
(3.) The assessee claimed that the revised return filed voluntarily disclosing higher income comes within the Amnesty scheme formulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes through various circulars. The Assessing Officer has completed the assessment order and also initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273(2)(a) of the Act. According to the Income-tax Officer the increase in the income in a revised return was a result of statutory disallowance and recalculation of depreciation under the Income-tax Rules. Hence, no higher income has been shown by the assessee in the revised return. Therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the Amnesty scheme. His claim for the benefit of the Amnesty scheme was rejected.;