1999 PLP 3878 (PTD)
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS and another Versus UNION OF INDIA and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3878 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 231 I T R 24 |
| Bench Members | S. C. Agrawal and G. T. Nanavati, JJ |
| Parties | ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS and another Versus UNION OF INDIA and another |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3878 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3878 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 231 I T R 24 bench comprising: S. C. Agrawal and G. T. Nanavati, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3878 (PTD) (ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS and another Versus UNION OF INDIA and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dinesh Vyas, Senior Advocate (P.H. Parekh, Krishan Mahajan and Sarneer Parekh, Advocates with him) for Petitioner.
- Ashok H. Desai, Attorney-General for India, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor-General of. India (B.K. Prasad, C. Radha Krishna, A.M. Khanwilkar and Krishnan Venugopal, Advocates with him) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Petition from the judgment and order, dated 29th July, 1997, of the Bombay High Court in W. P. No.973 of 1997).
Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme
Constitutional validity of provisions
Provisions valid
Indian Finance Act, 1997, Chap. IV, Ss.62 to 78
Constitution of India, Art.
14. The provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, are constitutionally valid. All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. Union of India (1997) 228 ITR 68 (Bom.) affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
In this special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (see (1997) 228 ITR 68), the petitioners are seeking to challenge the validity of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS). The High Court in an elaborate judgment has dealt with the various submissions made assailing the constitutional validity of the Scheme. We are in agreement with the said view of the High Court. We have heard Shri Dinesh Vyas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the special leave petition and the learned Attorney-General for India for the Union of India. The learned Attorney- General has placed the following statement indicating the policy the Government is following and will be following in checking tax evasion and the said statement is reproduced as follows: "(1) After December 31, 1997, the Income-tax Department will considerably step up survey operations under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (2) According to Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act as amended with effect form January 1, 1997, if in the course of a search, undisclosed income is detected then the assessee is liable to the following: (i) tax at the rate of 60 per cent; (ii) penalty which can be up to 300 per cent on the tax evaded; (iii) interest under section 158BFA. (3) In addition, the Finance Minister has announced that in every case of detection of undisclosed income, prosecution will be launched. The relevant provisions are in Chapier XXII of the Income-tax Act. (4) Besides tightening up of legal provisions, the following steps have also been taken: (i) Acceleration of the process of issuing Permanent Account Number (PAN); (ii) Acceleration of the computerisation of the Income-tax Department; (iii) Installation of software to detect assesee who satisfy the criteria laid down under the proviso to section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act. (5) Government is committed to making a success of the VDIS-97 for fulfilling the objectives set by the Government in the Finance Minister's Budget Speech. We also wish to emphasise that section 72 of the VDIS-97 guarantees complete confidentiality in respect of declarations. " Taking into consideration the aforesaid statement made by the learned Attorney-General, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court- The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. M.B.A./4204/FC Order accordingly