2001 PTD 811

I.T.A. NO. 1620/LB OF 2000 Versus I.T.A. NO. 1620/LB OF 2000

Citation2001 PTD 811

CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal

ORDER

1. In this case the petitioner is the assessee whose declared income was exclude from the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme by the I.T.O and assessment subsequently was finalized on estimate basis.

2. The assessee's claim before the subordinate officers as well as before me remained that he was a new taxpayer and the C.B.R. had directed for acceptance of the returns in the case of new assessee by omitting certain clauses of original Circular No.4 of 1996 through Circular No. 16 of 1996, dated 14-6-1996. As a result of above omission the case of new taxpayer even in the cases of succession of some other assessee was to be accepted under S.A.S. Subsequent to the said circular another instruction was issued vide Letter C. No.7(27)/S. Asstt./96, dated 2-6-1996 through which it was directed that the returns of new taxpayers be accepted if there was -no concealment.

3. Referring to the above circulars the learned A.R. further added that all his investment stood explained and there was no concealment as is evident from the subsequent assessment by the I.T.O. himself, which is only an estimate and nothing had been added in the deemed provisions of law.

4. The D.R., however, disagreed with him. He said that the case was that of a taken-over shop hence the provisions of Self-Assessment referred by the A.R. were not applicable. I consider myself in disagreement with learned D.R. The Circular No. 16 of 1996 as referred by learned A.R is continuous to Circular No. 4 of 1996. The C.B.R. through the same has omitted paras. 7(a) and 7(b) of Circular No.4 of 1996 as a result of which a new taxpayer not only becomes entitled to acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme but it also does not become a case of succession if the taking over person is a new taxpayer. Further, the department has itself not found any concealment in this case and instructions given vide circular letter mentioned above, therefore, are also applicable. In view of this accumulated position in this case I hold that the exclusion from S.A.S. was not justified.

5. The case fully qualifies hence I direct for its acceptance accordingly.

6. C.M.A./M.A.K,/56/Tax (Trio.) Appeal accepted.