JUDGMENT R. Gururajan, J.—The petitioner is before me seeking to quash the letter dated June 22, 2000, issued by the first respondent vide annexure E and also to quash the notices dated July 3, 2000, issued by R-2 vide annexures F to F 2 under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner owns plantation where coffee is grown. The petitioner in respect of the year ending March 31, 1994, relevant to the assessment year 1994-95 had purchased cast iron moulds and leased the same in favour of certain customers. In the respect of the year ending March 31, 1995, he purchased carbondioxide gas cylinders of the value of Rs.15,50,000. The same was purchased from DDK Industries, 612, GM Palya, behind BEML, Bangalore on September 11, 1994, which was supported by an invoice. The petitioner has referred to various details in this regard. The Central Government notified the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 ("the Scheme" for short). The petitioner submitted an application under Section 65(1) in respect of the scheme, the petitioner claimed depreciation on machinery and cast iron moulds and gas cylinders. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the business premises of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., on March 6, 1996, and it was concluded on May 22, 1996. During the search proceedings it was detected by the Department that DDK Industries, Bangalore, from whom the petitioners claimed to have purchased the cylinders is a non-existent entity. In those circumstances, the respondents in terms of Section 64(2)(ii) of the Scheme and in the light of an answer to question No. 29, decided to cancel the certificate issued under Section 68(2) of the Scheme. Notice was issued in terms of annexure C calling for objections. Objections were filed in terms of annexure D. After considering the objections, the respondents cancelled the certificate in terms of annexure E. Thereafter they have issued annexures F, F1 and F2, notices under Section 148. Those notices provide for an escaped assessment in terms of Section 147. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner. 3. The respondents have entered appearance and they have filed a detailed affidavit justifying their stand. Those notices provide for an escaped assessment in terms of Section 147. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner. 3. The respondents have entered appearance and they have filed a detailed affidavit justifying their stand. They refer to various material facts to contend that the cancellation is proper and legal and it does not call for any interference. 4. Sri Sarangan, learned senior counsel argues before me that the cancellation is bad in law and he wants this court to interfere. According to learned counsel, once a certificate is accepted, the transaction is concluded in all respects and it cannot be reopened. He relies on Laherchand Dhanji Vs. Union of India and others, (1982) 135 ITR 689 Bom and Hemalatha Gargya Vs. CIT, [2003] 259 ITR 1 (SC), in support of his contention. Per contra, Sri Seshachala supports the order. 5. After hearing learned counsel on either side, I have carefully perused the material on record. 6. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme introduced in the year 1997 provides for certain benefits in the light of voluntary disclosure of income in terms of the statutory provisions. Admitted facts reveal that the petitioner had claimed depreciation of machinery and equipment in terms of annexure A. The same was accepted. Thereafter the respondents have conducted a search operation in the premises belonging to Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., and an admission is made by the petitioner that DDK Industries, Bangalore, is its own business concern. It is also stated that he is using this as a business entity to supply cylinders to various companies. The so called sale of cylinders were not genuine sale of cylinders. The cylinders were brought by Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., the same was shown as the cylinders sold to leasing companies. As a matter of fact there was no manufacturing activity of whatsoever done by the DDK Industries. He has also stated that the cylinders actually shown to the leasing company were not there at all and the entire transaction was a sham transaction. In the light of the material available on record, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner. It is stated in the notice that the declaration made by the petitioner is consequent to discovery of escaped income during search under Section 132 carried out in the case of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., the alleged lessee in the lease transaction claimed by the petitioner. It is stated in the notice that the declaration made by the petitioner is consequent to discovery of escaped income during search under Section 132 carried out in the case of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., the alleged lessee in the lease transaction claimed by the petitioner. A reply has been submitted by the petitioner. It is surprising to notice that there is no factual denial that the leasing of gas cylinders to Mega Gas is a fictitious transaction. The reply is as bald as it could be. The only defence is that the search was conducted in the premises of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., and not in the premises of the assessee-company. The allegations are not disputed. Section 64(2)(ii) reads as under : "(2) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall apply in relation to--... (ii) the income in respect of the previous year in which a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was initiated or requisitioned, under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act was made, or survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out or in respect of any earlier previous year." 7. A reading of the said provision would show that the income in respect of the previous year in which a search under Section 132 was initiated shall not apply to Section 64(1). The Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No. 755 dated July 25, 1997 (see [1997] 226 ITR 33, has clarified with regard to cases relating to search under Section 132 by way of an answer to question No. 29 (page 34) : "Question No. 29 : A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act bars a person from making a disclosure in respect of the previous year in which the search took place and also for any earlier previous year. In case, a search warrant is issued in the name of one person, can others who also reside at the same premises and whose statements may have been recorded during the course of the search, make a disclosure of their income ? Answer : Yes, but not in respect of income, assets, etc., seized during the course of the search or discovered as a result of the search." 8. It cannot be forgotten that the Scheme has been introduced with the laudable object of ending the dispute between the parties. Answer : Yes, but not in respect of income, assets, etc., seized during the course of the search or discovered as a result of the search." 8. It cannot be forgotten that the Scheme has been introduced with the laudable object of ending the dispute between the parties. When there is no voluntary disclosure, then the petitioner cannot have the benefit of a beneficial scheme. The scheme is beneficial only to bona fide assessees and not to those who try to make an unlawful gain out of the said scheme. In these circumstances, I am clear in my mind that the respondents are fully justified in cancelling the certificate issued to the petitioner. 9. Mr. Sarangan, learned counsel, however, tried to contend that once the certificate is accepted the same becomes final and is binding on the parties. I am afraid that this argument would lead to illogical conclusions. Benefits have to be provided to bona fide assessees and not to those who make false pleas for the purpose of benefits. Any restriction in such cases in the matter of power cannot be accepted in the larger interest of justice. Under the scheme a declaration is sought in terms of Section 65(1) read with the rules. In the column for verification it is categorically stated that the information given by the declarant is correct and to the best of his knowledge and belief. When the information given in the declaration is found to be incorrect, any certificate issued pursuant to that incorrect declaration is also an incorrect certificate. Therefore, the respondents are right in recalling the certificate in the light of an incorrect declaration made by the petitioner. Even otherwise, when a power to issue a certificate is available, then the power to recall in the event of any fraud is always available to the authorities as otherwise it would result in encouraging the unscrupulous persons. Therefore, the want of power argument does not appeal to me. 10. The second argument of learned counsel is that the search is not done in the premises of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the petitioner could not have knowledge of the so called fictitious transaction. This argument is also to be rejected. The petitioner has stated in para. 5 of the petition that the declaration was filed without any knowledge of the search. This argument is also to be rejected. The petitioner has stated in para. 5 of the petition that the declaration was filed without any knowledge of the search. When the show cause notice was issued making a specific allegation, in this regard nothing prevented the petitioner from denying the same in its reply. The reply is submitted by a responsible chartered accountant. Therefore, the theory of "no knowledge of search" cannot be accepted. If the petitioner has no knowledge he could not have made any averments in paras, 11 and 12 with regard to these transactions. He cannot be partly ignorant and partly knowledgeable in respect of a transaction. Therefore, the argument of ignorance on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 11. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the arguments of the petitioner. The petition stands rejected. No costs.