COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MAYANK ROTOPLAST INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the 4 cases, the application under sec. 256(2) has been made in identical circumstances. A survey was conducted at the business place of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year in question. The assessee had initially filed a return declaring a loss. After the survey was conducted the assessee filed a revised return disclosing income and claimed benefit of Amnesty Scheme which was then brought into effect by a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Assessing Officer did not allow the benefit of Amnesty Scheme by holding that the filing of return after a survey was conducted was not voluntary and suo motu filing of revised return and therefore made regular assessment giving no benefit of Amnesty Scheme. On appeal, C.I.T. (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, on further appeal, set aside the order by following its decision rendered in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation, Surat v. INcome Tax Officer, Surat, I.T.A. No. 3421 and 3422/90 in which it had held as under:-