9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these appeals, the Revenue has raised the common grounds, which read as under : "1. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) is correct in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the assessment, in view of the following observation made by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission in its order dated 31st March, 2008. " The CIT/AO may take such action as appropriate in respect of the matters, not placed before the Commission by the applicant, as per the provision of section 245F(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961." relying on the decision of Hon' ble High Court in the case Neeru Agarwal Vs. UOI (187 Taxman 198). 2. appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal as stated above as and when need of doing to arise with prior permission of the Hon'ble ITAT." 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of Smt.Diksha Singh and Shri Paramjeet Singh on 15.12.2005. Consequently, notice under Section 153A of the Act was served on the assessee (Smt.Diksha Singh) for the assessment years under consideration on 14.3.2007. Smt.Diksha Singh filed her ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO completed the assessment under Section 153A read with Section 144/245F(4)of the Act. For the assessment year 2000-01, the AO determined the total income assessable income of the assessee at ₹ 2,61,38,740 by making additions/ disallowances. The AO also completed the assessments in the case of Late Paramjeet Singh through Legal Heir Smt.Diksha Singh for the assessment year 2000-2001 and also for remaining years in both the cases by making certain additions/disallowances. 5. Aggrieved by the orders of the AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeals before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised several grounds, however, vide ground no.2 of the appeals, the assessee challenged the orders of the AO on the ground that the AO has no jurisdiction to make afresh assessment order, once the order under Section 245D(4) of the Act has been passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of the same assessment years. In support of the above contention, the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.Neeru Agarwal vs. Union of India [2010] 187 Taxman 198 (All.) having identical facts. Vide ground No.4 of the appeals, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddot; commission by the applicant, as per provisions of section 245D(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961." and has assessed the income on the basis of the impounded documents. As an illustration, the reasons for making the assessment are as below as mentioned on page 3 of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2000-01: Add: Annexure A-1/LP-1 Page -21 Show details of payments made of ₹ 23,140 by Smt.Diksha Singh to VLCC. The assessee has not mentioned anything about this transaction in the Statement of facts submitted before Hon'ble S.C. Rs.23,140 10. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt.Neeru Agarwal vs. Union of India [2010] 187 Taxman 198 on identical facts have held as under : "The relevant portion of the order of the Settlement Commission was paragraph 7 which was the basis of the impugned notice. In the said paragraph, the Commission stated: "7. The Commissioner of Income-tax/Assessing Officer may take such action as appropriate in respect of the matters, not placed before the Commission by the applicant, as per the provisions of section 245F(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." The said portion of the order is being construed by the Department as aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y found by the Settlement Commission that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, as per sub-section (6) of section 245D. On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (4) and (6) of section 245D and sections 245F(4) and 245-I, it would appear that except in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is final and conclusive and binding on all the parties. This appears to be so because the Settlement Commission was constituted to reduce the life span of litigation and to provide speedy remedy to an assessee who voluntarily discloses his/her undisclosed income for hassle free settlement of the case. The very use of the words "settlement of cases" are indicative of the fact that the provision has been made to settle the case in its entirety for ever and leave no issue open for subsequent decision. [Para 19] In the instant case, the facts found and documents seized in search operation were matters which related to the settlement of undisclosed income of the petitioner and therefore, were subject-matter of consideration of the Settlement Commission. It could not be said that such matters were matters other th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice for making further enquiry in the matter in view of sections 245D(6) and 245-I. There cannot possibly be piecemeal determination of the income of an assessee for relevant period, one by the Settlement Commission and another by the Assessing Officer, otherwise the very purpose of filing application before the Settlement Commission would be frustrated. It is obligatory on the Settlement Commission to pass an appropriate order after taking into consideration the entire material brought before it by the parties including the department. There is no statutory provision which may empower the Settlement Commission to restore back the matter in respect of certain items to the Assessing Officer and also finally settle income of the applicant. The scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not envisage vesting of any such power in the Settlement Commission, as interpreted by the apex Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1/119 Taxman 352 that the Settlement Commission shall pass an order in accordance with law means- that it can stipulate the conditions of payment like instalments, last date for payment etc. and not bey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remains that the order of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission has not been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court and has been accepted by the Department except to the extent of Misc. Application filed before it. In case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, remedy is to approach the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission had not empowered the income-tax authorities to frame another assessment order while settling the undisclosed income of the assessee for the period covered by its order in respect of the income mentioned in the various seized documents. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the additions made to the income on the basis of the seized documents, while giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble Settlement Commission." 7. The ld.CIT(A) has passed similar orders in the cases of both the assessees for all the assessment years under consideration. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. Shri Praveen Kumar, ld.CIT(DR) heavily relied on the orders of the AO and on the other hand Shri J.J.Menrotra, C.A., ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after passing of the order by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
