Petition seeking refund under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme dismissed; assessments based on filed returns upheld.

The court dismissed the petition seeking a refund based on a voluntary disclosure of income under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. The court held that assessments based on returns filed under section 143(1)(a) could not be disputed and noted that any correction should have been sought by canceling the voluntary disclosure certificate. As the assessments were found to be valid and no challenge was made to the certificate, the court found no grounds for interference, ultimately ruling the petition devoid of merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessments under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme.
2. Entitlement to refund based on voluntary disclosure of income.
3. Interpretation of section 69 of the Finance Act, 1997.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the legal heirs of a deceased landowner who received compensation for acquired properties. The Assessing Officer noticed capital gains, leading to assessments for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The widow filed returns, which were accepted. Subsequently, the son made a voluntary disclosure of the entire income, including what was assessed in the mother's hands. The mother sought a refund based on this disclosure.

2. The petitioners argued that since the same income was assessed and disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, the mother was entitled to a refund. However, the Commissioner rejected the revision petitions, stating that assessments based on returns filed under section 143(1)(a) could not be disputed. The court noted that any correction should have been sought by canceling the voluntary disclosure certificate. Since the son did not challenge the certificate, the court found no grounds for interference.

3. The respondents cited section 69 of the Finance Act, 1997, which prohibits reopening completed assessments based on voluntary disclosures. The petitioners contended that this prohibition applied only to the declarant, not other assesses. The court held that assessments challenged in revision were based on filed returns, and any error lay in the voluntary disclosure made by the son. As the assessments were valid, the court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit.

---