JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal stated the case and referred the undernoted question of law arising out of the orders passed in W. T. A. Nos. 93 to 96 and 100 to 104/Ind of 1989 on the applications registered as R. A. Nos. 19 to 22 and 26 to 30/Ind of 1990 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"), for our opinion : " Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Amnesty Scheme did not suspend the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and as such there was no promissory estoppel against the statute and the returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, therefore, the assessee was liable to the penalties under Sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?" 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is assessed as an individual. The years of assessment are 1977-78 to 1980-81 for penalties under Section 18(1)(c) of the Act and 1977-78 to 1981-82 for penalties under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee was served with a notice under Section 17 of the Act requiring her to file the returns of wealth for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1981-82 and onwards. The notices were served on March 3, 1986. The assessee filed the return of income on March 14, 1986, and paid the self-assessment tax. The assessment for all the five years was completed by a consolidated order dated December 31, 1986. The Wealth-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Act. The penalties were levied as particularised in the statement of the case. The assessee contended that the Amnesty Scheme was in force till March 31, 1986, and she was planning to avail of the scheme to submit the returns. Before this could be done, she received the notice under Section 17(1) of the Act. The returns were filed on March 14, 1986. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the returns were not liable to be treated as voluntary and levied penalty. The assessee filed appeals which were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (annexures "B-1" and "B-2"). The assessee then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. The returns were filed on March 14, 1986. The Wealth-tax Officer held that the returns were not liable to be treated as voluntary and levied penalty. The assessee filed appeals which were dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax (annexures "B-1" and "B-2"). The assessee then filed the appeals before the Tribunal. She placed reliance on CBDT Circular No. 423 (see [1985] 155 ITR (St.) 45), dated June 26, 1985, and Circulars Nos. 432 and 441 (see 11985] 156 ITR (St.) 162, 165), dated November 15, 1985, and contended that she was entitled to obtain the benefit of the scheme and was thus not liable to suffer penalty. The Tribunal, however, negatived the contention and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved, the assessee filed applications under Section 27(1) of the Act. The Tribunal then stated the case and referred the aforesaid question of law for our opinion. 3. We have heard Shri Nazir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant-assessee, and Shri D. D. Vyas, learned counsel for the non-applicant-Department. 4. The following points are not in dispute - (a) The Amnesty Scheme was in force till March 31, 1986 ; (b) The returns were filed before the expiry of this period ; (c) The assessee paid the tax as found due before the expiry of this scheme ; (d) The notice under Section 17 of the Act was issued during the currency of the scheme (e) Penalties were imposed on the ground of concealment and late filing of the returns. 5. It is not disputed before us that the assessee had the right to obtain the benefit of protective umbrella of the Amnesty Scheme till March 31, 1986. The contention of the Department is that as the returns were submitted though before the expiry of the scheme, after issuance of the notice under Section 17 of the Act, the assessee became disentitled to obtain immunity from penalties. 6. The object behind such schemes is to induce the persons to make disclosures and start paying the taxes without apprehension of facing prosecutions and suffering penalties. 6. The object behind such schemes is to induce the persons to make disclosures and start paying the taxes without apprehension of facing prosecutions and suffering penalties. The undernoted factors are relevant in such matters :-- (a) The assessee makes full and true disclosure voluntarily and in good faith, before the expiry date of the scheme, i.e., March 31, 1986 ; (b) The assessee pays the tax on the net wealth as disclosed before March 31, 1986 ; (c) The assessee co-operates in enquiry relating to his assessment of wealth ; 7. In the instant case, the Department has placed no material on record to show that the disclosure was not voluntary or was lacking in good faith. Even when the returns are filed after the notice, it can be legitimately contended that the assessee has co-operated in the enquiry. Hence, the condition is fully satisfied. 8. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 198 ITR 543 (Kar) [FB] and CIT v. Hassomal [1996] 217 ITR 636 (MP). We do not see any justification for denying the benefit of the scheme to the assessee who elected to make full and true disclosure in the hope of getting the benefit of the scheme. 9. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in law in holding that the returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, as such, the assessee was liable to the penalties. 10. Ex consequenti, we hold that the returns were liable to be treated as voluntary and the assessee was entitled to be given immunity from penalties. We, therefore, bifurcate the question as under : " (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Amnesty Scheme did not suspend the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and as such there was no promissory estoppel against the statute ? and (b) The returns of wealth filed by the assessee were not voluntary and, therefore, the assessee was liable to the penalties under Sections 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" 11. We answer part (a) above, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department, and part (b) in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. 12. We answer part (a) above, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department, and part (b) in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. 12. The question is answered as noted above, This case is, thus, disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. 13. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary under the law.