Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellant is an Association of Person comprising of individual citizens of India associated for political activities and is registered with the Election Commission of India. The assessing officer put the appellant on notice to submit audited accounts including the P&L a/c and balance sheet for the subject year and also for the preceding two years, details of bank accounts, immovable properties, donations received, investments and other aspects of the appellant's case for the aforesaid periods. These were examined on the basis of audited books of account and other details, which were also admittedly produced before the assessing officer. It revealed that the return filed reported the income of the Central Office along with those of some other state units of the party but not of the totality of units. The audit report certified that there was no voluntary contribution received individually exceeding Rs. 10,000 at a time. The total collection of voluntary contribution was reported to be sum of Rs. 68,64,800. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer received information from DIT (Investigation), Chennai, about the appellant having a bank account in Vijaya Bank, Welder Street, Mount Road, Chennai. On examination, it was found that this bank account was not included in the accounts. When the party was confronted with this fact, it submitted that that was true and apart from the said bank account there were found more bank accounts, two at Chennai and one each at Bombay and Bangalore, which it had subsequently discovered. It was also lack of knowledge thereof, consequent to the successive splits undergone by the party from time to time. It was not known who had taken over which unit and with which account or accounts, and further, with whom he had allegiance and so the initial omission. It was, however, assured that the main entries in these new bank accounts were cross-entries of those in the central office accounts. On further scrutiny, the assessing officer found that all contributions had been received through the regular receipt books that were all manually numbered. It was also found by the assessing officer on scrutiny of the receipt books that all denominations of the receipts were less than Rs. 10,000 each. All the receipts were signed by party volunteers and each collection book reflected receipt-vide collection. The assessing officer asked the appellant to furnish the names of the party functionaries who had received the contributions and also the transport through which they had brought the monies for deposit to Delhi. The appellant had replied that the party functionaries had gone over to Delhi for various party matters from time to time and at that time, they had carried with them, the monies to Delhi. This submission was however, not backed by evidence to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The assessing officer, therefore, took the view that the party was unable to furnish proper books of accounts and other documents, which would enable him to properly determine the income. He also observed that the party had not disclosed truly, all the accounts at the time of filing of the return. It was also after the department had made enquiries and discovered the bank account of the party at Chennai that it had come forward at the fag end of the limitation period to furnish fresh audited accounts after consolidating the accounts of all other state units. The party's claim that the revised statement of income and accounts be accepted was devoid of merit for it was neither bona fide nor done on the basis of the assessed's own discovery. Relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in O.P. Malhotra v. CIT (1981) 129 ITR 379 (Del), the assessing officer also observed that no valid revised return under section 139(5) of the Act could be filed in a case where the return had not been filed originally under section 139(1) read with section 139(4B) of the Act. The return was indeed filed in response to notice under section 142(1), which did not admit of any revision. The assessing officer adverted to the special provisions governing the political parties. After noticing the decision of the Apex Court in Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 222 ITR 260 (SC) and also the provision of section 13A of the Act, the assessing officer concluded that in view of the failure of the party to comply with the letter of law, it was not entitled to the exemption under the Act and a sum of Rs. 1,23,72,370 was to be assessed as income. The assessment in that manner was completed on 31-3-1998.

12. On the point of no valid revised return filed, we find that the authorities below omitted to take note that the return was filed pursuant to section 142(1) of the Act. No variation of income was sought. Consistently, the appellant had been canvassing nil income. The case is thus academic. The other point that has been raised on behalf of the department is about the transfer of money being effected through DD's or TT's instead of manually delivering them to the Central Office. While it will be an ideal circumstance for transfers to be made through normal banking, channels to avoid risks and administrative complications, yet, as long as the Act itself does not prescribe any compulsory mode of remittance, it will be wrong on the part of the revenue authorities to give preference to a certain mode over another, which in their opinion is more advisable and to reject the accounting, version on that basis.