2009 (12) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Re-opening of assessment petitioner made certain investments in bonds and units which were not disclosed before the department nor the petitioner has explained the source of investments therein either before the department or even in the statement of facts filed before the Settlement Commission AO reopened the assessment - petitioner contended that the matters covered by the order of the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened in any proceeding under the Act or under any law for the time being in force held that - The assessing authority has no jurisdiction to issue the notice for making further enquiry in the matter in view of Sections 245D (6) and 245 I of the Act. - after passing of the order by the Settlement Commission, no power vests in the assessing authority to issue impugned notice in respect of the period and income covered under the order of the Settlement Commission - Income Tax department may move to the Settlement Commission if it has material to establish that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority post-settlement by the Settlement Commission.
2. Finality and conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's order.
3. Scope and interpretation of Section 245D(4) and 245F(4) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Validity of the impugned notice and order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
5. Allegations of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority Post-Settlement by the Settlement Commission:
The primary issue revolves around whether the assessing authority has jurisdiction to issue notices and orders after the Settlement Commission has passed its order. The petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's order is final and binding, and no further assessment can be made except in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, which was not alleged here. The court agreed, noting that the Settlement Commission's order is conclusive as per Section 245I of the Income Tax Act.

2. Finality and Conclusiveness of the Settlement Commission's Order:
The court emphasized that the order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) is final and binding on all parties involved. This finality is supported by Section 245I, which states that no matter covered by the Settlement Commission's order can be reopened in any proceeding under the Act. The court observed that the Settlement Commission's order can only be challenged if obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, which was not the case here.

3. Scope and Interpretation of Section 245D(4) and 245F(4) of the Income Tax Act:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 245D(4) and 245F(4) to determine their scope and applicability. Section 245D(4) allows the Settlement Commission to pass orders on matters covered by the application and any other matter related to the case referred to in the Commissioner's report. Section 245F(4) states that, unless expressly directed otherwise by the Settlement Commission, the provisions of the Act continue to apply to matters not before the Commission. The court concluded that the Settlement Commission's order implicitly covered all matters, including those not explicitly mentioned, as they were part of the overall assessment.

4. Validity of the Impugned Notice and Order Issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax:
The court found the impugned notice and order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to be without jurisdiction. The notice was issued to assess matters allegedly not covered by the Settlement Commission's order. However, the court held that all matters, including investments and seized documents, were implicitly considered by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice or pass the order.

5. Allegations of Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation by the Petitioner:
The court addressed the department's claim that the petitioner did not disclose certain investments and luxury expenditures. The court noted that these matters were part of the search operation and were known to the department. Since the Settlement Commission had considered the entire material, including seized documents, the court held that the petitioner did not commit fraud or misrepresentation. The Settlement Commission's order had settled the undisclosed income, and the department could not reassess these matters.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Settlement Commission's order is final and binding, and the assessing authority has no jurisdiction to issue notices or orders on matters covered by the Settlement Commission. The impugned notice and order were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed. The court emphasized that the remedy for any alleged fraud or misrepresentation lies with the Settlement Commission, not the assessing authority. The judgment underscores the importance of the finality of the Settlement Commission's orders in providing a conclusive resolution to tax disputes.

← Previous Next →