http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1252 of 2008

PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

RESPONDENT: C.A. Taktawala

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2008

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B.SUDERSHAN REDDY  

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.19088/2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Delay condoned.         Leave granted.         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:

       \023Whether 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?\024         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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

     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/-   ...................

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

 ...................

                       :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.