Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 2414 2009 SLD 2414 (2009) 310 ITR 64
Karnataka High Court
IT APPEAL No. 450 OF 2003€  JANUARY 31, 2008
DEEPAK VERMA AND K.L. MANJUNATH, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Chief Commissioner of IncomE tax, Hubli

v.

Pampapathi*

Law:

Section:

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - Assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 - A search was conducted at premises of assessee-firm in December 1994 - In a statement recorded under section 132(4), partners of assessee had agreed to voluntarily offer certain income subject to deduction under section 80HHC for relevant assessment years - Later on, one of partners of assessee addressed a letter dated 25-1-1995 to department stating that partners were willing to voluntarily offer an additional income subject to deduction under section 80HHC; and that, accordingly, revised returns would be filed - Thereafter, revised returns were filed by assessee for each assessment year - Assessing Officer rejected revised returns on ground that same were not in conformity with letter dated 25-1-1995, and passed an assessment order based on admission made in letter dated 25-1-1995 - Whether letter dated 25-1-1995 could be treated as a statement recorded under section 132(4) in order to use same against assessee in proceedings under Act - Held, no - Whether when said letter had clearly showed that assessee-firm was going to file revised returns in accordance with law, Assessing Officer was required to consider only revised returns filed by assessee and not said letter - Held, yes FACTS The assessee-firm was engaged in extraction of iron ore from mines and was exporting the same. A search was conducted at the premises of the firm in December 1994. In a statement recorded under section 132(4), the partners of the assessee agreed to offer voluntarily certain income subject to deduction under section 80HHC for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96. Later on, one of the partners of the assessee-firm addressed another letter, dated 25-1-1995 to the department stating that the partners of the firm were willing to voluntarily offer an additional income subject to deduction under section 80HHC; and that revised returns would be filed. Thereafter, revised returns were filed by the assessee for each assessment year. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the revised returns on the ground that the same were not in conformity with the letter dated 25-1-1995,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492