High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
Smt. Snehlata vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Sections 1997FA 64, 2(24)
Asst. Year 1963-64
S.L. Kochar, J.
Writ Petn. No. 968 of 2000
27th September, 2005
Counsel Appeared
B.I. Mehta, for the Petitioner : A. Patankar, for the Respondents
ORDER
S.L. Kochar, J. :
The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 30th Dec., 1999 passed and conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, CIT, Bhopal (Annex. P/1) whereby, the declaration made by the petitioner, under the provisions of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the VDI Scheme, 1997) submitted on 9th Dec., 1997 before the IT Department for issuance of certificate as per provisions under s. 68(2) of VDI Scheme, 1997, was refused to be entertained on the ground that the gold Ginnis claimed to have been acquired at the time of marriage on 11th July, 1959 and declaration was sought for the asst. yr. 1963-64 whereas the valuation of the gold ornaments were done as on 1st April, 1962 which was not in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the VDI Scheme, 1997, any income which was not disclosed prior to December, 1997, could be declared, for which the assessment (sic–return) was not filed as per provisions under s. 139 of the IT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out Annex. P/6 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner acquired 110 gold Ginnis on 11th July, 1959 at the time of her marriage relevant to asst. yr. 1960-61. Therefore, the same can be considered for issuance of certificate under the VDI Scheme, 1997. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per own showing of the petitioner, the valuation was done on 1st April, 1962. Therefore, the said amount would be considered only for the asst. yr. 1963-64. Apart from this, he has also submitted that the gold Ginnis were received by the petitioner at the time of marriage from her various relations as gift, therefore, the same could not be considered as income acquired prior to VDI Scheme, 1997. Thus, the respondent No. 2 has rightly refused to issue certificate to the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and after perusing the petition, reply as well as the documents filed herein, this Court is of the opinion that as per provision of the Finance Act, 1997 wherein Chapter IV is for VDI Scheme, 1997 and according to s. 64, charge of tax on voluntarily disclosed income is prescribed. The provision of main section is reproduced thus:
“64. Charge of tax on voluntarily disclosed income.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, where any person makes, on or after the date of commencement of this Scheme, but on or before the 31st day of December, 1997, a declaration in accordance with the provisions of s. 65 in respect of any income chargeable to tax under the IT Act for any assessment year.”
According to this main provision, any person could make a declaration in accordance with the provisions of s. 65 in respect of any income earned prior to 31st day of December, 1997, chargeable to tax under the IT Act, for any assessment year. “IT Act” is defined in this scheme under s. 63(b) i.e. “IT Act means the IT Act, 1961” and in IT Act, “income” is defined under s. 2 sub-s. (24) and in definition of income, the receipt of any cash or coin at the time of marriage by the spouse are not covered. Therefore, the receipt of 110 gold Ginnis at the time of marriage by the petitioner on 11th July, 1959 from her relations, would not fall within the definition of ‘income’ for which the return could not be filed as per provision under s. 139 of the IT Act. The receipt of 110 gold Ginnis by the petitioner at the time of marriage from her relations would, at the most be considered as gift received at the time of marriage and gift is not included in the definition of income. Therefore, as per VDI Scheme, 1997, for receipt of 110 gold coins in the year 1959, the petitioner cannot be granted required certificate. Though the respondent No. 2 has not considered this aspect of the matter, but since it is a pure question of law and the respondents have specifically raised this question in their return, therefore, the same can be considered by this Court. In the result, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for consideration of her claim under the provisions of VDI Scheme, 1997. Therefore, for the reasons as aforesaid, this petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[Citation : 296 ITR 529]
