Full Text
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1252 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad
RESPONDENT:
C.A. Taktawala
DATE OF
JUDGMENT
BENCH:
S.H. KAPADIA & B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
JUDGMENT:
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.19088/2006
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the
High Court had erred in not answering the question which, in our opinion, was the substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax
Act, 1962.
We quote hereinbelow for the sake of convenience the said question:
\023Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(a) and
273(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, on the ground that benefit under the Amnesty
Scheme was available to the Assessee, particularly when subsequent to search operation, the Assessee itself had revised its returns on a number of occassions, which would go to show that the return was
:2: not voluntary?\024
For the sake of clarity we also annex here the position of various returns filed for various Assessment years in question.
Asst. Year
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1. Original return filed on 3.3.83 12.7.84 28.6.85 28.6.85 Income declared Rs 1,19,949/- 1,10,700/- 60,210/- 8070/-
2. First Revised return filed on 31.3.86 28.11.85 28.11.85 31.3.86 44,58,688/- 1,22,460/- 72,220/- 79,460/-
3. Second Revised 29.9.86 30.3.86 31.3.86 29.9.86 25,27,210/- 14,99,630/0 10,71,970/- 1,86,700/-
4. Third Revised 23.2.87 23.2.87 29.9.86 25.2.87 24,98,769/- 16,96,350/- 6,54,572/- 9,67,830/-
5. Fourth Revised..................................... 26.2.87..................................... 2,99,540/-......................
6. Original Asst. Order passed on 23.3.85 31.3.86 30.3.87 30.9.87 ASSESSED Income Rs. 20,29,840/- 15,31,240/- 11,70,540/- 10,27,700/-
7. Reassessment order passed on 31.8.87 7.9.87................................. Ultimate ASSESSED Income Rs. 38,22,110/- 16,98,150/-:3: Having considered the above chart with relevant documents we are of the view that the above question needs to be considered by the High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly the Tax Appeal Nos.281-288 of 2005 stand restored to the file of the High Court. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.