High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy (HUF)
R. Jayasimha Babu & Gnanaprakasam, JJ.
Tax case (Appeal) No. 199 of 1989
29th March, 2001
Ravikumar, for the Appellant : P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Respondent
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :
The Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the amnesty scheme without considering the fact that the declaration filed by the assessee had been filed after a raid in his premises. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri vs. Union of India (1993) 204 ITR 368 (SC) that a declaration made after the seizure of incriminating records cannot be regarded as voluntary.
Counsel for the assessee also brings to our notice the decision rendered by the learned single judge of this Court in cases concerning this very assessee in respect of this very transaction in G.S.R. Krishnamurthi vs. M. Govindaswamy, ITO (1992) 195 ITR 137 (Mad), wherein it has been held that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the amnesty scheme.
The extension of the benefits of the scheme to the assessee who had purchased the property in the city of Madras of an extent of 3.00 acres 24.5 per cents at No. 24, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Madras-93, under a sale deed of 19th May, 1982, which showed the consideration of Rs. 5,86,000 when in fact, the consideration actually paid was Rs. 14,11,000 and incriminating documents establishing such larger payment had been seized at the raid prior to the filing of the declaration, cannot be sustained.
Counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the appeal itself had not been considered on the merits especially on the ground of limitation. While holding that the Tribunalâs order extending the amnesty scheme is unsustainable, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the other ground that had not been considered by it.
The Tribunal shall render its decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records, as the matter is now very old one.
[Citation : 252 ITR 570]