Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of search proceedings and consequential proceedings on the ground that the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 was operative during the search period and should have protected the petitioner from action under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Scheme of 2016 contained an express exclusion in paragraph 196(e) for undisclosed income where search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been conducted and also in cases where notices under the specified provisions had been issued or were pending. The petitioner's premises were searched during the currency of the scheme, but the declaration under the scheme was not made before the search. The scheme was therefore unavailable to the petitioner. The scheme could not override the statutory provisions of the Income-tax Act or keep them in abeyance during its operation.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, and the search and subsequent proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the impugned search and consequential proceedings were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory scheme expressly excludes cases involving search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the scheme cannot be invoked to invalidate or suspend action taken under the Act during its currency.