Case Law Details
Subhash Chandra Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In the present case, the petitioner has first availed the benefit of VDIS by submitting the return 01.07.1997 and 3 1.12.1997 for the assessment year 1993-94 to 1997-98 and paid the income-tax @ 30%. Thereafter, he filed the belated IT returns under Section 139 on 01.1998 and deducted income so disclosed in VDIS i.e. voluntary disclose income.
For the assessment year 1993-94 to 1997-98, he has declared his income Rs.13,74,947/- with the description of assets i.e. cash, debtor, share and bank account and paid income tax Rs. 4,12,482/- on 26.12.1997. Thereafter, he submitted return for those two assessments years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by declaring income from salary, NSC, Bank, Unit Trust, Mutual fund etc Rs.3,74,234/- and deducted the income under VDIS and claimed tax liability ‘Nil’ to claim the refund of Rs.49003/-. This is not the intention of the VDIS.
The voluntarily disclosed income is not liable to be included with regular income declared in the return under section 139 as tax paid under VDIS is not liable to be refunded at any cost. The income tax return submitted under Section 139 is not liable to be reopened after availing of the VDIS. The source of income shown for voluntary disclose income and income source shown in the return under Section 139 is altogether different.
Under Section 64 of the Finance Act only those persons are entitled to give declaration in respect of income chargeable under the tax under the Income Tax Act for any assessment year, firstly for which he has failed to furnish return under Section 139, secondly, which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished by him under the Income Tax Act before the date of commencement of the scheme, thirdly, which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
