1991 (5) TMI 3 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Settlement Commission's directives.
2. Adequacy of information provided by the appellant.
3. Non-cooperation and delaying tactics by the appellant.
4. Application of statutory amendments to pending proceedings.
5. Justification of the Settlement Commission's findings and actions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Settlement Commission's Directives:
The appellant, a member of the Kamani family, filed an application with the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commission directed the appellant to file a statement of facts in December 1976, which was delayed until March 7, 1978, due to successive adjournments. The Commission found the initial and supplementary statements inadequate and issued notices under rule 7 read with rule 8 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1976. The appellant's reply on January 12, 1984, was found unsatisfactory, and the documents submitted were deemed irrelevant.

2. Adequacy of Information Provided by the Appellant:
The Settlement Commission emphasized the need for full and true disclosure of income and effective cooperation. Despite repeated requests, the appellant failed to provide necessary documents, including the deed of trust and trusteeship agreements with foreign companies. This non-compliance led to the Commission's decision to dispose of the matter, noting the appellant's attempt to seek shelter from criminal prosecution and the passage of thirteen years without significant progress.

3. Non-cooperation and Delaying Tactics by the Appellant:
The appellant's conduct, including filing a writ petition and seeking stay of proceedings, was viewed as confrontational. The appellant's non-cooperation was highlighted by the Commission's finding that twenty-five letters and reminders were needed for compliance. The appellant's responses were deemed a mass of irrelevance, and his assertions about submitting all details were found false and misleading. The Commission noted the appellant's changing stands, including a contradictory affidavit filed in a foreign court, which undermined his credibility.

4. Application of Statutory Amendments to Pending Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the application of amendments under section 245HA/22HA, effective from June 1, 1987, to his application filed in 1976. The court rejected this contention, stating that the procedural nature of the amendments allowed their application to pending proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 915, supporting the view that procedural amendments apply to ongoing cases.

5. Justification of the Settlement Commission's Findings and Actions:
The court upheld the Settlement Commission's findings, agreeing that the appellant had not provided full and true particulars and had not cooperated. The Commission's decision to dispose of the proceedings under section 245HA/22HA was deemed justified. The court noted the appellant's lack of candor and the orchestrated abuse against various authorities, reinforcing the Commission's conclusion that a meaningful settlement was impossible.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Settlement Commission's findings and actions. The court emphasized the importance of cooperation and full disclosure in settlement proceedings and upheld the application of procedural amendments to pending cases.