COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. DILIP KUMAR LALWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 30th September, 1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, Allahabad in ITA No. 93 (Alld)/99 for the assessment year 1992 -1993.

(2.) THE background facts may be noticed in brief. On 24.11.1991 a search and seizure operation was conducted in M/s. Vishnu and Co. and Lalwani Group of Cases. In the search operation the assessee who is one of the members of Lalwani group cases, was found that he had taxable income but had not file the return of income for the Assessment Year 1992 -1993. Consequently, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served on the assessee. In response, the assessee filed return of income on 31st of August, 1995. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings set up a case that he had received remittances of foreign exchange which were covered under Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities & Exemptions) Act, 1991. The assessee claimed immunity under the said Act and submitted that he is not bound to disclose the name of the person who remitted the amounts. No inquiry and investigation, in view of the provisions as contained in the said Act shall be commenced against the recipient, submitted the assessee before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that for the purposes of income tax, the assessee can be asked to furnish evidence to show that, as a matter of fact, the sums in dispute were received under the said Act. Consequently, he made additions in the income of the assessee by rejecting the explanation. The Appellate Authority although by its order dated 14th of December, 1992 allowed the appeal in part but the aforesaid contention of the assessee was rejected. The assessee carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has allowed the appeal by granting substantial relief to the assessee except in respect of one remittance which was, admittedly, received after the cut off date as provided under the Act.

(3.) HEARD Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the department and Sri Ashish Bansal for the respondent assessee. The learned counsel for the department contends that the assessee can be asked to provide the name of the person who remitted the amount in dispute. Elaborating the argument, he submits that before availing the immunity under the said Act, the assessee has to prove that the money was remitted by a genuine person. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in view of the scheme of the Act as also the speech made by the Finance Minister while introducing the Act in Parliament and the departmental circular issued, it is evident that the immunity granted is absolute and no inquiry or investigation can be made with regard to the such remittances.