TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (5) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....since died. It is stated in the complaint that the accused firm is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of timber, hardware (iron goods) and also deals in cement and jalies. It is alleged that all the partners are in charge of the business and conduct thereof of the firm and are responsible to it for the conduct of its affairs. The firm, it is alleged, filed the return of income regarding the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1985-86 declaring its income as Rs. 1,34,092. The return, it is stated, was verified in the prescribed form on page 4 by accused No. 2, Bawa Bhupinder Singh (petitioner No. 3) for himself and accused Nos. 3 to 6 who are the other partners of the firm. The return was inter-accompanied by trading accounts of timber, iron, cement and jali, profit and loss accounts all signed by the accused, Bawa Bhupinder Singh (petitioner No. 3) and the balance-sheet as on March 31, 1985. During the assessment proceedings the following position with respect to girders stock was shown and was detected: "Opening stock as on 1-4-1984 324 girders Purchase during the year  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntended that the official of the Income-tax Department had asked for information which was furnished. It is contended that during discussion and talk of settlement, the firm filed its revised return in accordance with the circular on the clarification issued by the Income-tax Department and on the assurance given on January 2,1986, by the Chief Commissioner. It is also contended that the income-tax authorities accepted the revised return and imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,488 for the concealment of tax in their return and filing of fake return for the assessment year 1985-86. The firm filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Amritsar, which was dismissed. Thereafter, second appeal was filed before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, (for short "the Tribunal"), which was accepted vide order dated September 3, 1993, and the orders of the authorities below providing for penalty for concealment of income and for filing false return, was set aside. The copy of the order of the Tribunal which is placed on record as annexure P1 has been referred to. In view of this, it is contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings in pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larification issued in respect of Circular No. 441 dated November 15, 1985 (see [1985] 156 ITR (St.) 165), declaring the higher income or wealth. It is contended that one of the grounds of challenge is that the case of the petitioners is covered under the amnesty scheme and the revised income-tax return filed by the petitioners was under the said scheme and the authorities had voluntarily accepted the return. In terms of the clarification issued to the said circulars, it is contended that it has been specifically clarified that where the assessee makes a true and full disclosure of his income, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution and penalty. The criminal miscellaneous is liable to be allowed as the circular appended to the petition is necessary for the determination of the controversy. The same is thus taken on record and the criminal miscellaneous stands allowed. A perusal of the said circular shows that certain clarifications were issued regarding the press note and circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance regarding declaration of higher income or wealth. It is stated that the clarifications are issued on the questions raised at different places on the press note of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost of 191 girders, i.e., 745 girders minus 554 girders. The return was accordingly revised to Rs. 1,89,844. The Income-tax Officer accepted the revised return and framed the assessment on the same day. This procedure was completed on March 7,1986, i.e., before March 31, 1986, as was clarified in answer to question No. 1 referred to above. The assessment order records that while filing the revised return, the assessee requested for immunity from penalty for concealment and waiver of interest. However, the assessing authority stated that he was unable to accept the request because no immunity could be given where the concealment had been established. This finding of the assessing authority though upheld in the first appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but was set aside by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated September 3, 1993 (annexure PI). The learned Tribunal while disposing of the appeal made the following observations: "That facts of the case are peculiar, inasmuch as, the assessee after the Income-tax Officer made an enquiry about the shortage of girders came up with the surrender in accordance with the calculation of the Assessing Officer and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion where the assessee admits the truth and pays the taxes properly. Nothing has been shown from the circular that the case would not be covered in the event of concealment. Rather, question No. 7 of the said circular clinches the issue which reads as under: "Question No. 7: Where the investigations in the case of persons other than the assessee indicate concealment of income by the assessee and the assessee makes a true and full disclosure of his income, would be entitled to immunity under these circulars. Answer: Yes." Therefore, having regard to the order dated September 3, 1993 (annexure P1), passed by the Tribunal and also the various questions and answers clarified in the circular referred to above, it is evident that concealment of income ipso facto would not entail criminal prosecution but rather ensures amnesty from prosecution. The case law referred to by learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, is inapplicable to the case in hand. This is more so when the authorities under the Act in exercise of their legally permissible powers, held out a representation which is not contrary to or offends any legal provision of law and does not fetter any legislative or ....