2019 (12) TMI 264 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed income admitted in the Settlement Application was a commission earned from accommodation transaction - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the transactions pertaining to the undisclosed income of Umed C.Mehta is also the subject matter of the Settlement Application in the case of Parasmal Jain. If that being so, there is a possibility that such a subsequent consideration by the Settlement Commission could be deemed as double taxation, in case the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Settlement Commission, in the case of Umed C.Mehta, is upheld. Order passed in the case of Parasmal Jain by the Settlement Commission has become final. While that being so, if the objections of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is to be accepted, the possibility of double taxation for one transaction may occur. This Court is of the view that the issue in the case of Umed C.Mehta could be reconsidered, in the light of the subsequent development through the orders passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Parasmal Jain. It would not be appropriate to interfere with the present impugned notice at this stage, but, it would be appropriate to await the decision of the Settlement Commission, after remand, in the case of Umed C.Mehta.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Settlement Application by Income Tax Settlement Commission
2. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2008-09
3. Possibility of double taxation due to Settlement Commission orders in related cases

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's Settlement Application was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, leading to a writ petition challenging the rejection. The undisclosed income admitted in the application was disputed, prompting the petitioner to seek relief through the writ petition.

2. Following the rejection of the Settlement Application, the petitioner received a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. This notice was contested in the writ petition as part of the overall challenge to the rejection of the Settlement Application.

3. The petitioner argued that a related party, Mr. Parasmal Jain, had a Settlement Application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, addressing the same income in question. The petitioner contended that the Settlement Commission's decision in Mr. Jain's case should prevent double taxation in the petitioner's case. The respondent, however, argued that each case before the Commission is independent, and the findings in one case do not automatically apply to another.

4. The Court noted that the Settlement Commission's order in Mr. Jain's case was influenced by the decision in the petitioner's case. Acknowledging the risk of double taxation if the original rejection of the petitioner's Settlement Application is upheld, the Court decided to reconsider the petitioner's case in light of the subsequent developments in Mr. Jain's case.

5. The Court highlighted a previous instance where the petitioner challenged the Settlement Commission's decision, which was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration. Given this history, the Court decided not to interfere with the current notice under Section 143(2) at that stage, opting to await the Settlement Commission's decision after the remand in the petitioner's case.

6. Consequently, the writ petition was closed, and no costs were imposed. The Court emphasized the need to await the final decision of the Settlement Commission in the petitioner's case before making any further determinations regarding the impugned proceedings.