2011 (8) TMI 467 - HC - Income Tax

Powers and procedure of Settlement Commission - the search operation was carried on by the department and certain documents were seized by it - The department was in possession of the entire material including the investment made by the assessee, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had played any fraud or mis-represented the fact - The department was very much a party before the Settlement Commission - Moreover the order of the Settlement Commission has been allowed to become final - The Settlement Commission, by operative portion has settled the income of the assessee and provided immunity with the rider that the order would be void if it was found subsequently that the same was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts - It is not the case of the department that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of fact - The Assessing Officer, therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice for making further enquiry in the matter in view of sections 245D(6) and 245-1 of the Income-tax Act - There cannot possibly be piecemeal determination of the income of an assessee for relevant period, one by the Settlement Commission - Thus, the order of the Settlement Commission is conclusive, no power vests in the Assessing Officer to issue notice in respect of the period and income covered by the order of the Settlement Commission.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) post-Settlement Commission's order.
2. Powers and procedure of the Settlement Commission under the Income-tax Act.
3. Finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's orders.
4. Delegation of powers by the Settlement Commission to the AO.
5. Legal principles governing tax assessments and statutory interpretation.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) Post-Settlement Commission's Order:
The judgment emphasizes that once the Settlement Commission has adjudicated a matter and passed an order under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, the AO does not have the jurisdiction to reassess or reopen the case for the same financial year. The Settlement Commission's order is final and conclusive as per section 245-I of the Act, and no further action can be taken by the AO unless there is a case of fraud or misrepresentation, which must be addressed by the Settlement Commission itself.

2. Powers and Procedure of the Settlement Commission:
The Settlement Commission is empowered under sections 245C to 245H of the Income-tax Act to entertain applications from assessees for settlement of their cases involving undisclosed income. The Commission follows a detailed procedure, including issuing notices, calling for reports from the Commissioner, and holding hearings. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case once an application is allowed to be proceeded with, and it can grant immunity from prosecution and penalties if the assessee cooperates and makes a full and true disclosure.

3. Finality and Conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's Orders:
Section 245-I of the Act states that every order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) is conclusive regarding the matters stated therein. Such orders cannot be reopened in any proceedings under the Act or any other law, except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation. The judgment reiterates that the Settlement Commission's orders are meant to provide finality and prevent piecemeal determination of income by different authorities.

4. Delegation of Powers by the Settlement Commission to the AO:
The judgment clarifies that the Settlement Commission cannot delegate its powers to the AO to reopen or reassess the case for the same financial year. The Commission itself has the authority to reopen proceedings under certain circumstances, and any delegation of this power would be contrary to the statutory provisions and settled legal principles. The principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" (a delegate cannot further delegate) applies, ensuring that the Commission's powers are exercised only by the Commission and not by any other authority.

5. Legal Principles Governing Tax Assessments and Statutory Interpretation:
The judgment underscores the importance of following the statutory provisions strictly in tax matters. It refers to several legal precedents establishing that tax statutes should be construed strictly, and no tax can be imposed by inference or analogy. The court must interpret the statute based on what is clearly expressed and cannot supply any assumed deficiencies. The judgment also highlights the constitutional mandate under Article 265 that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that the AO acted beyond his jurisdiction by reopening the case for the same financial year after the Settlement Commission had passed its order. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the AO's reassessment was upheld, emphasizing the finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's orders. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed, reaffirming the legal principles governing the powers and jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission and the AO.