9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Settlement Application of the petitioner firm. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner herein carries on business as a Civil Engineering Contractor. The petitioner herein originally filed an application for settlement of its case before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, relating to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94. The petitioner offered additional income consequent on a search made in the petitioner's premises. The Settlement Commission pointed out, after analysing the various materials, that the income in respect of the above-said assessment years have to be arrived at on an estimated basis, despite the fact that the regular books of accounts have been maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 1993-94, apportioned on the basis of the gross turnover of each year shown by the assessee and considered by the Settlement Commission. It specifically pointed out, to quote from the words of the Settlement Commission, "The applicant is not entitled to any further deduction from this net income. The above will be added to the additional income disclosed in the S.O.F.". In respect of the income from lorry business, the Settlement Commission also arrived at the computation of income. Considering the co-operation extended by the assessee, the Settlement Commission granted immunity under Section 254H(1) of the Income Tax Act from imposition of penalty and prosecution under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and relevant Sections of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected. 4. A perusal of the order of the Settlement Commission dated 06.07.2002 shows that the application dated 3rd May, 2002 was moved against the rejection of an earlier Miscellaneous Application dated 12th April, 2002. The Settlement Commission considered the contention of the assessee that the Commission had rejected the Miscellaneous Application without considering the arguments put forth in its application and pointed out that the first issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner related to the allowance of depreciation and other admissible reductions in estimating the business income. In support of the contention made based on the reliance on the Circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes No.29D(XIX)-14 dated 31.8.1965, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to that extent alone, it granted the relief. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the Settlement Commission, invested with the powers as that of the Assessing Officer in the matter of computation of additional income, should have taken note of the Board's Circular dated 31.8.1965. Going by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra), the circular being of a binding character, the Settlement Commission committed a serious error in rejecting the petition. He also placed reliance on the decision reported in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC) Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi - III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) is an order of assessment and in considering the said question, all that the Apex Court had held in the decision reported in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (supra) was that, while exercising the power, the Settlement Commission, although does not act as a subordinate authority to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, yet, it would be enforcing the relevant provisions of the circulars for the benefit of the assessee in the process of settlement. Thus while holding that the circulars of the Board are legally binding on the Revenue, the beneficial circulars can be a subject matter of fair consideration at the hands of the Settlement Commission, on the assessee approaching the Settlement Commission und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against the order of the Settlement Commission is not that of an appellate forum, this Court does not sit as an appeal to get into the process to take an ultimate decision. Unless the reasoning is abusive or contrary to the provisions of law, which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, this Court does not assume any jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commission. Admittedly, the petitioner had had no grievance as against the order originally passed by the Settlement Commission and there was no Writ Petition filed thereon. Subsequent thereto, there was a Miscellaneous Petition, which was dismissed by the Settlement Commission. Even as against that, there was no Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
