2019 (9) TMI 1354 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking extension of time to deposit the amount with the Income Tax Department - Whether Settlement Commission could have straightaway imposed the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) - HELD THAT - We are inclined to restore the immunity granted to the Petitioner by the Settlement Commission considering the fact that the Petitioner has deposited an amount of 4 crores during pendency of these proceedings; the Petitioner had undertaken to pay the entire amount in terms of the order passed by the Settlement Commission along with interest payable under the Act and; furthermore since the Respondents have till date not taken any steps to enforce the demand despite the immunity not surviving upon passing of the impugned order dated 18.06.2019. Thus the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn subject to the Petitioner furnishing the undertaking of its Managing Trustee in the aforesaid terms. Subject to compliance of the conditions stipulated above the immunity granted to the Petitioner by the Settlement Commission vide its order dated 27.11.2015 shall stand restored. However the immunities shall stand automatically withdrawn in the eventuality of the Petitioner not complying with its aforesaid undertaking.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the Settlement Commission.
2. Restoration of immunity to the Petitioner.
3. Conditions for restoring immunity and consequences of non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The High Court clarified a specific aspect regarding the Settlement Commission's authority to impose a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the impugned order dated 18.06.2019. The Court offered the Petitioner an option to accept the impugned order, pay the due amount, and seek restoration of immunity. The Petitioner eventually accepted the impugned order and proposed to pay the outstanding amount in two instalments.

2. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner must provide an undertaking through its Managing Trustee to adhere to the agreed terms. Failure to comply would result in the immediate enforcement of the impugned order without any further opportunity to challenge it. The Court also warned that breaching the undertaking could lead to Contempt of Court proceedings against the Managing Trustee.

3. Despite the Respondent's objection to restoring immunity, the Court decided to grant immunity to the Petitioner based on various factors. These factors included the Petitioner's partial payment of ?4 crores during the proceedings, the commitment to pay the entire amount as per the Settlement Commission's order, and the Respondent's inaction in enforcing the demand post the impugned order. The Court dismissed the Petition as withdrawn, contingent upon the Petitioner submitting the undertaking within two weeks. Failure to comply with the undertaking would result in the automatic withdrawal of immunities, allowing the Respondent to enforce the impugned order.

This judgment highlights the Court's meticulous consideration of the Settlement Commission's actions, the Petitioner's compliance with the impugned order, and the conditions for restoring and potentially withdrawing immunity. The detailed conditions set by the Court aim to ensure the Petitioner's accountability and prevent any future challenges to the impugned order once the undertaking is accepted and filed.