' In this Constitutional petition following prayer has been made:-- "Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the petition may very graciously be accepted and the order passed by the respondent No,2 under para. 9(A) (ii) of the Circular No,4 of 2001, dated 15-6-2001 may be declared without lawful authority and having the legal effect."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Self-Assessment Scheme for the year, 2001-2002 was announced by the Revenue on 18-6-2001 while the return in this case was filed on 1-10-2001.
However, guidelines for selection of cases out of the scheme were issued by the Revenue' on'26-3- 2002.
3. In this situation, learned counsel submits and I will agree that the principles evolved with respect to the scheme for the assessm ent year.
2002.-2003 in W.P. No, 9979 of 2003. Dated 24-9-2003 are equally applicable to the said assessm ent' scheme in hand Para. 23 of that order read as under- Para. 23 Although I am not in agreement with the arguments of the petitioners that a scheme once issued could neither be amended nor extended as an exercise of one time delegated power yet I am in agreement that such change or extension/ cannot be detrimental to the assesses after returns had been filed and a final and decisive step had been taken by the assesses in response to the scheme notified for the year. It is correct that availing the scheme is optional for an assessee and that every assessee of the Income Tax Department can file a return under section 55 to be treated and assessed under normal law. However, that fact alone does not justify the issuance of parameters of denial of scheme to the assessees individually or collectively after filing-. Of the returns. A glance at the guidelines, dated 17-12-2002 makes it clear that para 9(a)(ii) of the Scheme has completely been substituted. The Revenue is totally silent as to why these guidelines could not be issued as part of para. 9, simultaneously with the scheme or at least before the filing of the returns. The shroud of uncertainty appears to have deliberately been allowed to remain covering guidelines only in order to have unchecked discretion to select a case for total audit. The withholding of the parameters or guidelines of selection of cases out of the scheme may not necessarily be mala fide. However, withholding of the guidelines till the filing of these returns does not appears bona fide either. The State does not cheat the citizens. The Revenue, therefore, is not correct in claiming that the purpose of these guidelines was to provide for impartiality and transparency."
For the above and various Other reasons a number of petitions by the assesses placed in similar condition were allowed on the ground that their cases were selected for process under normal law on the basis of guidelines issued after filing of the returns. Since the facts in hand are also identical, I will allow this petition and hold that the selection of the case of the assessee for total audit on the basis of the guidelines was improper.
5. It shall accordingly be set at naught.