Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1358 - HC - Income TaxApplication for settlement of cases u/s 245C - disclosure of income - under valuation of stock - valuation of stock - Held that - Real objection on the part of Revenue is the acceptance by Assessee of an offer made by ITSC during proceedings for accepting an additional income and submission is that it amounts to withdrawal of application disclosing particular income and substituting the same by another quantum of income is not correct. During proceeding before ITSC, it has ample power, to go for such offer as that is the process implicit in settlement and such settlement cannot be read or interpreted in a restricted and narrow manner as suggested by Shri Goel on the part of Revenue. It is the duty of Officer concerned to determine profit and loss of Assessee according to correct principles of accounting. For that purpose he may depend upon nature of business and its special character, allow certain adjustments but primary purpose and object is to deduce correct income, profit and gains. The Revenue Official cannot do without taking into account value of stock entered at the beginning and at the end of the year by assertaining difference between two. - ITSC in this case warrants no interference as there is no contravention of any provision of statute - thus writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the application under Section 245-C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Full and true disclosure of income by the assessee. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC). 4. Valuation of stock and its treatment as income. 5. Scope of judicial review of ITSC orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the application under Section 245-C(1): The petitioner argued that the application under Section 245-C(1) did not contain full and true disclosure of income, as the assessee disclosed additional income before the ITSC after the CIT's report, which shows non-compliance with Section 245-C(1). The court held that the application was valid as the ITSC had already scrutinized and accepted it under Section 245D(2C) after the CIT failed to submit a report within the prescribed time. 2. Full and true disclosure of income by the assessee: The petitioner contended that the assessee's subsequent disclosure of additional income indicated that the initial application did not contain full and true disclosure. The court found that the additional income accepted by the ITSC was based on a proposal during the hearing, which the assessee accepted to settle the dispute and buy peace. The court emphasized that the term "full and true disclosure" does not mean the initial disclosure is the final figure, as the ITSC can negotiate and settle the matter. 3. Jurisdiction and powers of the ITSC: The court highlighted that the ITSC has wide discretion and powers to settle cases, including the authority to negotiate and suggest additional income during the proceedings. The ITSC's role is not merely mechanical but involves proactive engagement to settle disputes comprehensively. The court cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Major Metals Ltd. v. Union of India, which supports the ITSC's proactive role in settlement proceedings. 4. Valuation of stock and its treatment as income: The court discussed the principles of stock valuation, emphasizing that valuation of stock is a matter of accounting and should reflect the true state of affairs. The ITSC's suggestion to treat an increased valuation of stock as additional income was accepted by the assessee to settle the dispute. The court found no fault with this approach, as it was part of the settlement process and did not indicate non-disclosure of full and true income. 5. Scope of judicial review of ITSC orders: The court reiterated that the scope of judicial review against ITSC orders is extremely limited. Judicial review is permissible only if the order is contrary to any provision of the Act or is influenced by bias, fraud, or malice. The court found no such contravention or manifest error in the ITSC's order in this case, thus warranting no interference. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the ITSC's order as it found no contravention of statutory provisions or manifest error. The court emphasized the ITSC's discretionary powers and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
|