TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                 TRIBHOVANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI                                 A
                              v.
                   UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 8, 1993
                                                                            B
         [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

      Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 Voluntary
Disclosrne of Income and Wealth Act, 1976. Section 3 and 14-Declaration
of concealed income by assesse~Acceptance of-Conditions requisite.
                                                                            c
      The appellants-assessee was a partnership firm and their accounting
year was the Samvat Year. The accounting year relevant to Samvat Year
2031 and to the Assessment Year 1976-77 ended on 3rd November, 1975.

      A search of the premises of the appellants was conducted on 28th D
October, 1975 under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, by the Commis·
sioner of Income Tax-Respondent No.3. During the search, which con-
tinued from time to time until the end of December 1975, cash, jewellery,
diamonds and books of account were seized. On 31st December, 1975, the
appellants made a disclosure under section 3(1) of the Voluntary Dis-
closure of Income and Wealth Ordinance 1975Noluntary Disclosure of E
Income and Wealth Act, 1976 for the Assessment Years 1965-66 to 1975-76.
It was disclosed thereby for the Assessment Years en bloc an income of Rs.
1,41 crores viz. Rs. 1.20 crores being the value of silver bars, silverware,
diamonds, set jewellery and other ornaments; Rs. 20 lakhs in cash and Rs.
1 lakh being the value of miscellaneous assets including furniture and F
fixtures. The 3rd respondent informed the appellants on 21st November,
1975 that since cash, jewellery, diamonds and books of accounts had been
seized from the appellants before the declaration was filed, it was not in
order under the terms of section 3(2)(ii) and that the declaration ought to
be filed under section 14(1). The appellant's request for review of this
decision was rejected on 30th December, 1975. On 31st December, 1975 G
which was the last date for filing of declarations under the Ordinance/Act,
the appellants made a declaration under protest under the provisions of
section 14. Representations were also made to the Central Board of Direct
Taxes to have the declaration under section 3(1) accepted but, on 20th
June, 1980, the Board declined to interfere.                                 H
                                     207
    208                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court by the appellants
    impugning the decision to reject the declaration under section 3 but the
    writ petition was summarily dismissed.

           In the appeal to this Court by Sp.~cial Leave it '!ltS subn\itted that
    section 3(1) did not and could not apply in respect of income for any
B   assessment year sub~.equent to the Assessment Year 1975-76 because there
    could be no failure to file a return in respect of the Assessment Year
    1976-77, the previous your whereof being 1975-76 and for subsequent years
    having regard to the period for which the Ordinance/Act was to operate
    viz. between 8th October, 1975 and 31st December, 1975, as the obligation
c   to file the return had yet to arise, and there was therefore no question of
    not disclosing income in return or not filing a return so that sub-clauses ·
    (a) and (b) in sub-section (1) of Section 3 did not apply. It was further
    submitted that the fact that the search and seizure under section 132 of
    the Income Tax A.d, 1961, had been carried out during the accounting year
D   1975-76 did not exclude the income of that accounting year from b'eing
    declared under section 3, and that it would be an absurd result i.f a
    declaration made prior to the seizure could be nullified by subsequ~;'
    seizure.                                                               ...
          The appeal was contested on behalf of the Revenue by submitting
E that the case of the appellant fell within the provisions of section 14, and
    therefore the decision to decline to accept the disclosure made by the
    appellant under section. 3 was justified.

          Dismissing the appeal, this court

F         HELD : 1. The object of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and
    Wealth Act, 1976 is to motivate the voluntary declaration of concealed
    income and with that object in mind the Schedule to the Act ·prescribes
    concessional rates of tax. A declaration of concealed income made after
    books of account or other documents or valuable assets have been seized
G   cannot be said to be a volutary disclosure; it is made because the books,
    documents and assets seized would disclose to the assessing authority the
    concealment of income. Such concealment could have been in respect of
    the previous year in which the seizure was made or in respect of any
    previous year pri{ll" thereto. [217-A-B}

H         2. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3, therefore, must be
                            TRIBHOVANDAS v. U.0.1.                            2Q9

    read as substantive provisions which debar an assessee who has declared A
    concealed income for a previous year during which a seizure of his bookS,
    documents or valuable assets has been made or for any previous years
    prior thereto from getting the advantage of the concessional rates of tax
    set out in the Schedule. [217-C]

          3. Such assessee is, however, not entirely excluded from the ambit of B
    the legislation for he may file a declaration under section 14 and obtain
    the comparatively limited - but still substantial - benefits prescribed
    therein. [217-D]

          4. The words "in respect of a previous year in which a search has C
    been made" cannot be so read as to mean that, for the provisions of
    sub-section (2) of section 3 to apply, the search and seizure should have
    taken place before the Ordinance/Act came into force. The words are too
l
    clear for that. They can only be interpreted to mean what they plainly say. ·
                                                                    (216-G-H]
           S. The words of sub-section (2) of section 3 are clear and unam- D
    biguous; the words must, therefore, be interpreted as they read. So read,
    they harmonise with the provisions of section 14. To those assessees who
    have declared concealed income, subsequent to a seizure during a previous
    year, for that previous year or for any previous year prior thereto the more
    beneficial provisions of section 3 do not apply, for the declaration is not E
    really voluntary, and the less beneficial provisions of section 14 do. [217-F]

          6. The classification between those who make truly voluntary dis-
    closures of concealed income and those who are impelled to make such
    disclosures because seizures of their book, documents and assets have
    already been effected is real and valid and bears a nexus to the object to       F
    be won. (217-G]

          7. The Ordinance/Act does not say that upon a declaration being
    made thereunder the income-tax authorities are debarred from conducting
    a search and effecting a seizure in respect of the previous year concerned.      G
    There is no reason to assume that such search or seizure, if cqnducted,
    would be for any ulterior m.otive. It could well be that an assessee has
    disclosed only a part of his concealed income for a previous year and a
    search and seizure is required to unearth the rest. (218-A-B]

          8. The case of the appellants falls within the category of a declaration   H
    210                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   in respect of income relating to the previous year in which the search was
    made, that is, for its previous year ending 3rd November, 1975, as also for
    earlier previous years in which it was not disclosed. The appellants'
    declaration of such income could have been made only under the
    provisions of section 14. [216-B]

B         9. The appellants' declaration of concealed income was rightly
    rejected under section 3, and the High Court was justifed in dismissing its
    writ petition. [218-C]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 77 (NT)
C of 1983.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 12th January, 1982 of the Delhi
    High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2020 of 1981.

          Anil B. Oivan, G.A. Shah, Hari Har Lal, Vikram Bhatia, B.V. Desai
D and S. Nalcvi for the appellant.
          J. Ramamurty, R.A. Perumal, Ms. A Subhashini and D.S. Mehra for
    the respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          BHARUCHA, J. We are concerned in this appeal by special leave
    with the provisions of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act,
    1976 (hereinafter called "the said Act"), which was deemed to have come
    into fprce on 8th October, 1975. The said Act was preceded by an Or-
    dinance in the same terms, called the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and
F   Wealth Ordinance, 1975, which had come into force on that day.

          The appellants are a partnership firm. Their accounting year is the
    Samvat Year. The accounting year relevant to the Samvat Year 2031 and
    to the Assessment Year 1976-77 ended on 3rd November, 1975.
G         On 28th October, 1975, a search on the premises of the appellants
    under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted by the
    Commissioner of Income-tax,. Bombay City-1 (the third respondent).
    During the search, which continued from time to time until the end of
    December 1975, cash, jewellery, diamonds and books of account were
H   seized. On 31st December, 1975, the appellants made a disclosure under
              TRIBHOVANDAS v. U.O.I. [BHARUCHA, J.]                     211

section 3(1) of the said Ordinance/Act for the Assessment Years 1965-66 A
to 1975-76. A copy of the appellants' declaration in this beh:ili has been
placed before us. The appellants disclosed thereby for the said Assessment
Years en bloc an income of Rs. 1.41 crores thus, Rs. 1.20 crores being the
value of silver bars, silverware, diamonds, set jewellery and other orna-
ments; Rs. 20 lakhs in cash and Rs. 1 lakh being the value of miscellaneous
assets, including furniture and fixtures. On 21st November, 1975 the 3rd 'ij
respondent informed the appellants that since cash, jewellery, diamonds
and books of accounts had been seized from the appellants before the
declaration was filed, it was not in order under the terms of section 3(2)(ii).
He added that the declaration ought to be filed under section 14(1). The
appellants made a request for review of this decision which, on 30th C
December, 1975, was rejected. On 31st December, 1975, which was the last
date for filing of declarations under the said Ordinance/Act, the appellants
made a declaration, under protest, under the provisions of section 14. The
appellants made representations to the Central Board of Direct Taxes in
furtherance of their desire to have the declaration under section 3(1) D'
accepted but, on 20th June, 1980, the Board declined to interfere.

      The appellants then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court
impugning the decision to reject their declaration under section 3. The writ
petition was summarily dismissed. This appeal by special leave is preferred
against that order.                                                            E
      For the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised, some
provisions of the said Ordinance/Act must be noticed. Section 3 reads thus:

        "3.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, where any person
        makes, on or after the date of commencement of this Act but            F
        before the 1st day of January, 1976, a declaration in accordance
        with the provisions of section 4 in respect of any income chargeable
        to tax under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or the Income-tax
        Act for any assessment year -

         (a) for which he has failed to furnish a return under section 139
                                                                               G
       . of the Income-tax Act, or

        (b) which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished
        by him under the income-tax Act before the date of commence-
        ment of this Act, or                                                   H
    212                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            (c) which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or
             failure on the part of such person to make a return under the
             Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or the Income-tax Act or to disclose
             fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment or
             otherwise,
B            then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Income-tax
             Act, 1922 or the Income-tax Act or in any Finance Act, income-tax
             shall be charged in respect of the income so declared (such income
             being hereinafter referred to as the voluntatily disclosed income)
             at the rate or rates specified in the Schedule.
c            (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to-

             (i) the income assessable for any assessment year for which a notice
             under section 139 or section 148 of the Income-tax Act has been
             served upon such person and the return has not been furnished
D            before the commencement of this Act;

             (ii) where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,
             jewellery or other valuable articles or things belonging to the
             person making the declaration under sub-section (1) (hereafter in
             this section, in sections 4 to 13 and in the Schedule referred to aS
E            the declarant) have been seized as a result of any search under
             section 132 of the Income-tax Act or under section 37A of the
             Wealth-tax Act, the income in respect of the previous year in which
             such search was made or any earlier previous year.

             (3) In addition to the amount of income-tax to be paid under
F            sub-section (1), the declarant shall invest a sum equal to five per
             cent of the amount of the voluntarily disclosed income in such
             securities as the Central Government may notify in this behalf in
             the Official Gazette.

G   Section 4 required the declaration to be in such form as was prescribed by
    th~ rules. It also set out how it was to be signed. Section 14, so far as it is
    relevant, reads thus :

            "14(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where any books
            of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other
H           valuable articles or things belonging to a person have been seized
      TRIBHOVANDAS v. U.0.1. [BHARUCHA, J.]                      213

as a result of a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act or A
section 37A of the Wealth-tax Act and such person (hereafter in
this se~tion referred to as the declarant) makes, on or after the
date of commencement of this Act but before the 1st day of
January, 1976, a. declaration in accordance with sub-section (2) in
respect of any income relating to the previous year in which such B
search was made or any earlier previous year -

(a) for which he has failed to furnish a return under section 139
of the Income-tax Act, or

  (b) which he has failed to disclose in a return of income furnished   C
. by him under the Income-tax Act before the commencement of
  this Act, or

(c) which has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or
failure on the part of such person to make a return under the
Income Income-tax Act, 1922, or the Income-tax Act, or to disclose D
fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment or
otherwise,

then, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Acts men-
tioneci in sub-section (1) of section 8 or the Wealth-tax Act, the
amount of income so declared or, as the case may be, the value of       E
the assets representing such income, shall not be taken into ac-
count for the purposes of -

(i) payment of interest by the declarant under sub-section (8) of
section 139 of the Income-tax Act;
                                                                        F
 (ii) payment of interest by the declarc:µlt under section 215 or
 section 217 of the Income-tax Act or the corresponding provisions
 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922;

 (iii) imposition of penalty on the declarant under the provisions of   G
 any of the said Acts, except under section 221 of the Income-t~.
 Act or the corresponding provisions of any of the other said Acts;
 and

 (iv) prosecution of the declarant under the provisions of any of the
 said Acts.                                                             H
    214                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            (2) The declaration under sub-section (1) shall be made to the
             Commissioner and shall be in such form and shall be verified in
             such manner as may be prescribed by rules made by the Board.

             (3) A declaration under this section shall be signed by the person
             specified in sub-section (2) of section 4 as if the declaration had
B            been made under that section.

             (4) A copy of the declaration made by the declarant under sub-
             section (1) shall be forwarded by the Commissioner to the income-
             tax Officer and the information contained therein may be taken
             into account for the purposes of the proceedings relating to as-
c            sessment or reassessment of the income of the declarant under the
             provisions of any of the Acts mentioned in sub-section (1) of
             section 8 or the Wealth-tax Act.

             (5) The immunity provided under sub-section (1) shall not be
D            available to the declarant unless the tax chargeable in respect of
             the income of the previous year or years for which the declaration
             has been made is paid by the declarant in accordance with the
             provisions of section 5.

          Shri AB. Divan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that
E section 3(1) did not and could not apply in respect of income for any
  assessment year subsequent to the Assessment Year 1975-76 because there
  could be no failure to file a return in respect of the Assessment Year
  1976-77, the previous year whereof being 1975:76, and for subsequent years
  having regard to the period for which the said Ordinance/Act was to
F operate, viz., between 8th October, 1975, and 31st December, 1975, as the
  obligation to file the returen had yet to arise. There was, therefore, no
  question of not disclosing income in a return or not filing a return so that
  sub-clauses (a) and (b) in sub- section 1 of section 3 did not apply. Further,
  there was no question of income escaping assessment under sub-clause (c)
  of sub-section 2 of section 3 because that could arise only after an assess-
G ment had been made consequent upon filing a return. In other words;
  because the accounting year 1975-76 was still running during the period for
  which the said Ordinance/Act was to operate neither sub-clause (a) nor
  (b) nor ( c) of sub-section 2 of section 3 could apply to that accounting year.
  Section 3(2) started with the words 'Nothing contained in sub-section (1)
H shall apply in relation to'; therefore, the first ingredient before sub-section
               lRIBHOVANDAS v. U.0.I. [BHARUCHA,J.]                       215

(2) could be invoked was the applicability of sub-section (1) of section 3       A
to the income sought to be declared. Sub-section (2) was in the nature of
a proviso to sub-section (1) and had to be construed accordingly. Where
the income sought to be declared did not fall within the limitations of
sub-section (1), sub-section (2) did not come into operation. Sub-section
(1) assumed an obligation to file a return and that obligatibn had not arisen    B.
in respect of the running accounting year 1975-76. Hence, the fact that the
search and seizure under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been
carried out during the accounting year 1975-76 did not exclude the income
of that accounting year from being declared under section 3. It was further
argued that the words "where any books of account, other documents,
money, gold and jewellery or other valuable articles or things belonging to      C
the person making the declaration ....... have been seized as a result of any
search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act... .." meant that such seizure
should have taken place before the coming into force of the said Or-
dinance/Act for, otherwise, the object thereof would not be achieved. The
interpretation ought to be such as would advance the object of the legisla-      D
tion, which was to motivate the disclosure of concealed income. No valid
classification existed between those who were and those who were not
searched during the relevant previous year. It would be an absurd result if
a declaration made prior to the seizure could be nullified by such sub-
sequent seizure.
                                                                                 E
       In our view, learned counsel for the Revenue was right in stressing
that the case of the appellants fell squarely within the provisions of section
14 and that, therefore, the decision to decline to accept the _disclosure of
income made by the appellants under section 3 was justified.
                                                                                 F
       Section 14, shorn of verbiage, states that where books of account,
other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or
things belonging to a person have been seized as a result of a search under
section 132 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, and such perso~ makes, between.
the period 8th October, 1975, and 31st December, 1975, a declaration in
respect of any income relating to the previous year in which such search         G
was made or in respect of any earlier previous year for which he has either
failed to furnish a return or which he has failed to disclose in the return
which he has filed or which has escaped assessment by reason of his
omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary
for his assessment or otherwise, then the amount of income so declared           H
    216                   SUPREME COURT R'3PORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A shall not be taken into account for payment of interest under section 139
    or section 215 or section 217 of the Income tax Act, 1961, or the cor-
    responding provisions of the earlier Act, for the imposition of penalty,
    except under section 221 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or the corresponding
    provisions of the earlier Act, and for the prosecution of the declarant under
    any of the provisions of these Acts. The case of the appellants falls within
B   the category of a declaration in respect of income relating to the previous
    year in which the search was made, that is, for its previous year ending 3rd
    November, 1975, as also for earlier previous years in which it was not
    disclosed. The appellants' declaration of such income could have been
    made only under the provisions of section 14.
c
           Let us now turn to section .3 and see what income may and what
    income may not be declared thereunder. Sub-section (1) of section 3 states
    that the declaration of the income thereunder must be made between 8th
    October, 1975, and 31st December, 1975, and it must be in a declaration
D   which is in accordance with the provisions of section 4. The declaration
    under section 3 must be in respect of income chargeable to tax under the
    Income-tax Act, 1961, or the earlier Act for any assessment year for which
    the declarant has failed to furnish a return, or which he has failed to
    disclose in his return filed before 8th October, 1975, or which has escaped
    assessment by reason of his failure to make a return or to disclose fully and
E   truly all material fact necessary for his assessment or otherwise. In respect
    of such declared in<;ome, income-tax is chargeable only at the concessional
    rates specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance/Act. Sub-section (2) of
    section 3 states that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply, so far
    as is relevant to the case before us, to income in respect of a previous year
F   in which a search has been made under section 132 of the Income-tax Act,
    1%1, and books of account, other decuments, money, bullion, jewellary or
    other articles and things belonging to the person making the declaration
    under sub-section (1) have been seized and to the income of any previous
    year prior to the previous year in which the search and seizure were made.

G         In the first place, the words "in respect of a previous year in which
    a search has been made" cannot be so read as to mean that, for the
    provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 to apply, the search and seizure
    should have taken place before the Ordinance/Act came into force. The
    words are too clear for that. They can only be interpreted to mean what
H   they plainly say.
                  TRIBHOVAND AS v. U.O.l. [BHARUCHA, J.]                  217

           Clearly, the object of the said Act is to motivate the voluntary A
    declaration of concealed income and with that object in mind ;:he Schedule
    to the Act prescribes concessional rates of tax. A declaration of concealed
    income made after books of account or other documents or valuable assets
    have been seized cannot be said to be a voluntary disclosure; it is made
    because the books, documents and assets seized would disclose to the

-   assessing authority the concealment of income. Such concealment could
    have been in respect of the previous year in which the seizure was made
    or in respect of any previous year prior thereto. The provisions of sub-sec-
                                                                                  B


    tion (2), therefore, must be read as substantive provisions which debar an
    assessee who has declared concealed income for a previous year during
    which a seizure of his books, documents or valuable assets has been made     c
    or for any previous years prior thereto from getting the advantage of the
    concessional rates of tax set out in the Schedule. such assessee is, however,
    not entirely excluded from the ambit of the legislation for he may file a
    declaration under section 14 and obtain the comparatively limited - but still
    substantial - benefits prescribed therein.
                                                                                D
           We do not find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Divan's submission
    that sub-section (2) of section 3 should be construed as if it were a proviso
    to sub-section (1) and to treat it as merely carving out of the ambit of
    sub-section (1). The authorities dealing with the manner of interpreting a
    proviso need not, therefore, be dealt with. Nor do we agree with Mr. Divan E
    when he says that reading the words of sub-section (2) literally will produce
    an absurd result. The words of sub-section (2) are clear and unambiguous;
    the words must, therefore, be interpreted as they read. So read, they
    harmonise with the provisions of section 14. To those assessees who have
    declared concealed income, subsequent to a seizure during a previous year, F
    for that previous year or for any previous year prior thereto the more
    beneficial provisions of section 3 do not apply, for the declaration is not
    really voluntary, and the less beneficial provisions of section 14 do. Cer-
    tainly, the classification between those who make truly voluntary dis-
    closures of concealed income and those who are impelled to make such
    disclosures because seizures of their books, documents and assets have G
    already been effected is real and valid and bears a nexus to the object to
    be won. Exphasis was laid upon the fact that even a seizure during the
    previous year subsequent to the making of the declaration under section 3
    could nullify the declaration if the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof
    were read as we read them, and this would lead to the absurd position_>hat H
    218                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A some income-tax authority, with that object in mind, could conduct a
    search, seize snme articles and so invalidate the declaration. The said
    Ordinance/Act does not say that upon a declaration being made there-
    under the income-tax authorities are debarred from conducting a search
    and effecting a seizure in respect of the previous year concerned. There is
    no reason to assume that such search or seizure, if conducted, would be
B   for any ulterior motive. It could well be that an assessee has disclosed only
    a part of his concealed income for a previous year and a search and seizure·    •
    is required to unearth the rest.

          Upon the interpretation placed by us on section 3 and section 14, we
C are of the view that the appellants' declaration of concealed income was
    rightly rejected under section 3 and the High Court was justified in
    dismissing the appellants' writ petition thereagainst.

         The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants shall pay to the
    respondents the costs of the appeal quantified in the sum of Rs. 5,000.

    N.V.K.                                                   Appeal dismissed.