TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, viz., Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas on 9th May, 1984, during the course of which some loose papers were found which contained certain notings. During the course of search statement of Shri Jayantilal Tribhovandas, son of the partner Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas, was recorded on 9th May, 1984. It is pertinent to note that no search was conducted at the premises of the assessee. The firm is constituted of four partners out of which only two were raided. The assessee-firm declared the amounts of Rs. 42,639 and Rs. 91,480 for asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively on the basis of notings on the loose papers found at the residential premises of Shri Tribhovandas Madhavdas, a partner, in the revised returns and claimed the benefits under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the benefits of Amnesty Scheme cannot be made available to the assessee-firm. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf & Ors. vs. CIT (1995) 125 CTR (Cal) 330 : (1995) 211 ITR 562 (Cal), the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ramchandran & Co. vs. ITO (1994) 120 CTR (Ker) 304 : (1994) 209 ITR 982 (Ker) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Ilaxi Textiles Industries (1994) 49 TTJ (Ahd) 491 : (1994) 49 ITD 330 (Ahd). 5. Shri K.C. Patel, the learned counsel for the assessee, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that there was no search and seizure operation at the premises of the assessee. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement was recorded and in his statement his son admitted that the loose papers were written by him. Thereafter, no investigation/inquiry was conducted till 31st March, 1987, when the assessee-firm filed the revised returns under the Amnesty Scheme, 1985, which was in operation. It is significant to note that no investigation/inquiry was conducted in the intervening period of about three years either in the case of the partner at whose residence search was conducted nor in the case of the firm and accordingly it is held that the revised returns were not prompted by the investigation that was going on. As will be apparent from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Saraf relied upon by both the parties before us, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e into. Therefore, at the point of time the return under the Amnesty Scheme was filed, the AO admittedly had no idea as to whether the seized papers would reveal any concealment. The mere fact that the petitioner<196>'appellant's case was awaiting a probe with reference to his past records as well as extrinsic sources could not lead to his ouster from the scope of the scheme." The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has further relied on the answer 19 of the CBDT Circular No. 451 in para 14 of the judgment, has mentioned as under: "It is an admitted fact that the assessee disclosed fully and truly his income and wealth in such revised returns and had also paid taxes in due time as provided under the amnesty scheme. Since the Department had no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee firm though it may bind the son of the partner. In view of the above, we agree with the learned CIT(A) that the assessee's case is covered under the answer to question No. 7 of the CBDT Circular No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986 reproduced at page 2 above. Coming to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Ramchandran & Co. relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, we find that the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts of the case before us. In the case before the Kerala High Court, the return of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1984-85 was due on 31st July, 1984, but the petitioner sought for extension of time till 31st March, 1985, and filed the return one year later on 31st March, 1986, disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e two cases are distinguishable. In the case of Ilaxi Textiles Industries, enquiry by the Revenue had proceeded further, and had reached to a stage where concealment by the assessee had been detected and various statements of third parties to justify the same had also been recorded. Further, one of the technical third party, who had given statement against the assessee was also cross-examined by the partner of the assessee-firm. Subsequently, after the cross-examination on the date fixed for the next hearing of the case, neither the assessee nor his authorised representative appeared before the AO. Thereafter, the assessee-firm filed a revised return disclosing additional income referable to the enquiry in question under the Amnesty Scheme.....