Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs C.A. Taktawala
- SCC(2011) 12 SCC 516
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court errs in declining to answer a substantial question of law arising under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, which the appellate tribunal has considered and decided, even where the High Court might have grounds to dismiss the petition on other grounds; such substantial questions must be addressed on their merits rather than left unanswered. Where an assessee has filed multiple revised returns subsequent to a search operation, progressively increasing the income declared across different assessment years, the Tribunal's cancellation of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act on the sole ground that benefit under an Amnesty Scheme was available — without considering whether the original return was genuinely voluntary or was prompted by the search operation — requires reconsideration as a substantial question of law, as the pattern of successive revisions may indicate the return was not voluntary.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High Court had erred in not answering the question which, in our opinion, was the substantial question of law under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1962.
We quote hereinbelow for the sake of convenience the said question:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(a) and 273(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, on the ground that benefit under the Amnesty Scheme was available to the Assessee, particularly when subsequent to search operation, the Assessee itself had revised its returns on a number of occassions, which would go to show that the return was :2: not voluntary? For the sake of clarity we also annex here the position of various returns filed for various Assessment years in question.
Asst. Year 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86
1. Original return filed on 3.3.83 12.7.84 28.6.85 28.6.85 Income declared Rs 1,19,949/-
1,10,700/-
60,210/-
8070/-
2. First Revised return filed on 31.3.86 28.11.85 28.11.85 31.3.86 Income declared Rs 44,58,688/-
1,22,460/-
72,220/-
79,460/-
3. Second Revised return filed on 29.9.86 30.3.86 31.3.86 29.9.86 Income declared Rs 25,27,210/-
14,99,630/0 10,71,970/-
1,86,700/-
4. Third Revised return filed on 23.2.87 23.2.87 29.9.86 25.2.87 Income declared Rs 24,98,769/-
16,96,350/-
6,54,572/-
9,67,830/-
5. Fourth Revised return filed on ................... .................. 26.2.87 ................... Income declared Rs .................... ................. 2,99,540/-
......................
6.Original Asst. Order passed on 23.3.85 31.3.86 30.3.87 30.9.87 ASSESSED Income Rs.
20,29,840/-
15,31,240/-
11,70,540/-
10,27,700/-
7. Reassessment order passed on 31.8.87 7.9.87 .................. ............... Ultimate ASSESSED Income Rs.
38,22,110/-
16,98,150/-
................... ...................
:3: Having considered the above chart with relevant documents we are of the view that the above question needs to be considered by the High Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Accordingly the Tax Appeal Nos.281-288 of 2005 stand restored to the file of the High Court.
The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free