High Court Of Allahabad
CIT vs. Subhash Chander Agarwal
Sections 68, 256(2), Rule 46A, VDS 18
R.M. Sahai & Om Prakash, JJ.
IT appln. No. 47 of 1986
12th November, 1987
Bharatji Agarwal, for the Revenue : Vikram Gulati, for the Assessee
OM PRAKASH, J.:
This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, by the CIT praying that the Tribunal be directed to draw up a statement of the case, on as many as six questions, as stated at the end of the application. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the contravention of r. 46A(1)(d)/ 3(a) of the IT Rules, 1962, by the AAC. The AAC admitted certain affidavits in evidence and called upon the ITO to furnish his comments in regard to them. The ITO did furnish his comments, but no application was made by him to produce the deponent for cross-examination. Now, the grievance is that the AAC did not afford him an opportunity of cross-examining the deponent. No question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as a finding of fact was recorded that an opportunity was given by the AAC to the ITO and thus the provisions of r. 46A were not violated.
The remaining questions relate to immunity. Under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975; the two minor daughters of the assessee declared an income or Rs. 25,000 each. The ITO, while investigating the source of that income, made enquiries from the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that the investigation as to the source of income declared by the minor daughters from the assessee is not permitted in the disclosure scheme. The contention of the Revenue was that it is only the declarant who acquires immunity and not the other persons to whom the amount declared belonged and, therefore, the AAC and the Tribunal legally erred in having held that the immunity was available to the assessee, the father of the minor daughters. The AAC clearly refers to a clarification given by the CBDT on the enquiry made by the Bharat Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta, wherein the Board clarified that in the disclosure scheme, no investigation would be made either from the declarant or from any other person including the guardian of the minors or husband of the lady. In view of the circular, we are of the view that no stateable question arises.
For the above reasons, we decline to ask the Tribunal to state the case on the questions set out in the application. The application is rejected.
No order as to costs.
[Citation : 172 ITR 166]