LACHHIRAM PURANMAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm. The firm submitted its return for the assessment year 1988-89 for the accounting period 1986-87 ending with Diwali 1987. In the account of the firm, an amount of Rs. 1,17,000 is shown deposited by Jagdishchandra and Rs. 1,10,000 by Rameshchandra. Rs. 60,000 were shown deposited by Anilkumar. According to the petitioners, all these amounts were invested by these persons in the firm after making voluntary declaration under the Amnesty Scheme declared for the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87. Respondent No. 1 on November 17, 1989, issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the deposit of the above sums on the ground that these amounts shown as deposited in the firm, are actually the income of the firm and not of the persons in whose accounts the amounts have been shown. The grievance of the petitioners is that once these amounts have been declared by the individuals under the Amnesty Scheme and assessed to tax by the competent authority, the Income-tax Officer was not authorised to issue the impugned notice. The notice is, therefore, without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chaphekar, placing reliance on a decision of this court in Mst. Anisa Bano v. ITO [1989] 177 ITR 368, argues that once the amount has been declared under the Amnesty Scheme and assessed to tax, the income-tax authorities have no jurisdiction to reopen that assessment by holding that such declared and assessed amount, if deposited with a firm, is the amount actually earned by the firm and that the firm had got it declared under the Amnesty Scheme through the individuals.

(3.) IN the result, this petition is dismissed without notice to the other party.