ANILKUMARA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S.N. Bhattad, learned Counsel for Petitioner. Shri A. Parchure, learned Counsel who appears for respondents is stated to be not available. Shri P. Waghmare, learned Counsel holding for him informs that the department has not supplied necessary papers to the office of Advocate Anand Parchure till date. He is, therefore, seeking adjournment.

(2.) ON 30.10.2014 this Court has passed the following order:

(3.) OUR attention is also invited to Section 73 to show that, there even an asset created by investing such undisclosed income can also be disclosed and immunity is granted in terms of 1997 Scheme for that asset and disclosure. He argues that in VDIS 1997, there is absolutely nothing which prohibits disclosure of consideration of such asset, if such asset created through undisclosed income, has been sold between 1987 -1997. According to him stand taken in the reply -affidavit before this Court is inconsistent with main scheme and the CBDT clarification dated 16.10.1997 is contrary to the 1997 Scheme. Learned Counsel has stated that in any case, it cannot be retrospective, as Section 65[3] prohibits making of second declaration under the Scheme.