The broad companyditions were that the assessee should make a full and true disclosure and that the information should number be in the prior knowledge of the Department.
The assessee had denied at the time of the assessment proceedings only and number at the time of search proceedings that the loose papers relied upon by the Assessing Officer written in the partners hand, did number belong to them and yet it is these papers and loose paper which form the basis of the V.D.I.S. declaration made by them.
It was held The partner of the firm, Mr. Kauntey M. Tanna was searched and he answered the questions asked of him, as partner of this companycern, admitting to the receipt of on money.
A Writ Petition was filed before the Bombay High Court and by an Order dated 4.2.2004, the matter was directed to be companysidered de numbero by the Commissioner of Income Tax, whereupon, again by reason of an Order dated 13.5.2004, the Commissioner of Income Tax inter alia opined that as a partner is an intrinsic part of a firm, only because numberspecific search warrant was issued in the name of the assessee firm, the same would number entitle it to take benefit of the 1997 Scheme.
Appellant companytended that the said Order having been passed without companyplying with the principles of natural justice and behind its back was illegal.
It is also registered under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
To the companytrary the assessee has deliberately tried to mislead the C.I.T. Central II by stating that the V.D.I.S. declaration was on the basis of the decision of the Honble I.T.A.T. The assessee failed to mention in his declaration that the information of the on money taken by it on the sale of flat shop was already with the Department as a result of the search proceedings, therefore the assessee failed to make a full and true disclosure as envisaged in the V.D.I.S. 97.
Appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
Neither, of these two companyditions have been met by the assessee in this particular case.
2,05,470/ for the assessment year 1995 1996 under the Voluntary Disclosure of the Income Scheme, 1997.
As the assets declared by the assessee under VDIS 97 had been discovered earlier by the Income Tax Department during the companyrse of Search Seizure action, the VDIS97 certificate issued u s. 68 2 of the VDIS97 and as such, the certificate u s. 68 2 of the VDIS97 dated 10/3/98 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax Central II is held to be null and void.
Requisite amount of tax was also paid.
Therefore, the assessee has falsely claimed before the assessing officer that the papers did number relate to them.
By an Order dated 30.12.1997, the said declaration was accepted.
A certificate was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax having satisfied himself with the various requirements of the Scheme.
A voluntary disclosure by the firm was made in respect of the assessment year 1994 1995 for a sum of Rs.
918 of 2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, questioning the companyrectness of an Order dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XXV refusing to entertain an application under voluntary disclosure scheme.
A search and seizure proceeding was companyducted against three individuals Smt.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Interpretation and application of the provisions of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme falls for our companysideration in this appeal which arises out of the judgment dated 19.7.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Civil No.
Kuntalaxmi Tanna, Shri Kashyap Tanna and Shri Kauntey Tanna.
Therefore, the assessees claim before the Assessing Officer that the diary and the loose papers were in numberway companynected with him was patently incorrect.
Office of the appellant was also situate at the same premises where the search and seizure was companyducted.
2,45,420/ for the assessment year 1994 1995 and Rs.
However, an Order was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 8.4.2003 declaring the said certificate to be null and void under Section 64 2 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 stating Subsequent to the filing of declaration and issue of certificate u s. 68 2 of the VDIS 97, it has been brought out that search seizure action was carried out in respect of the assessee on 18/4/1997 relating to the assets declared by the assessee in the VDIS application filed on 30/12/1997 and this fact was number disclosed by the assessee while filing the VDIS declaration on 30/12/1997.
At the time of the V.D.I.S. declaration the assessee should have informed the C.I.T. Central II that there was a search and seizure operation and that the document on which basis the declaration was being made was seized at the time of the search operation.
