9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. However the petitioner is at liberty to file a notice of motion for interim stay of the impugned order to the extent it relates to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, if so advised. The admission of this petition may affect assessment of petitioner for large number of years as they would kept in abeyance. It therefore become incumbent that this petition be heard along with Writ Petition No.2216 of 2016 and other connected petitions raising identical issues, which are kept for final hearing on 10th April, 2017 at 3.00 p.m. The respondent would file reply, if any, by 30th March, 2017. - WRIT PETITION NO. 2226 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - M.S. SANKLECHA A.K. MENON, JJ. Mr. V. Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able for each of the assessment years for which an application is made. In the absence of fulfilling the above jurisdictional requirement, the settlement for these assessment years stood rejected. This view of the three member bench of the Commission in the impugned order was contrary to the decision of a five member Special Bench of the Commission in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. 209 ITR 21 (ITSC). In the case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (surpa), the Special Bench has held that there is no requirement under the Act for an applicant to make disclosure of additional taxable income for each of the years contained in the application for settlement. However, the five member Special Bench decision of the Commission in Airtech Ltd. (surpa) was not follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the Assessing Officer, for each assessment year covered by the application and on such additional income there must be a liability to pay income tax for each such year especially in view of amendments brought about in proviso to section 245C(1), read with section 245A(b) by Finance Acts, 2007 and 2010, thereby rendering decision of Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. 209 ITR ITR 21, no longer good law ? 5. By an order dated 2nd December, 2016, the issue posed was answered in the negative and the view of the five member bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was reiterated i.e. additional taxable income need not be declared for each of the assessment years forming part of an application for settlement. 6. Therefore, the issue n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s being time barred or without jurisdiction. The aforesaid statement is made on behalf of petitioner not only in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11 but also for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 9. In the above view, there shall be interim stay restraining the Assessing Officer from issuing notices and or commencing assessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 10. So far as Assessment Years 201314 and 2014-15 are concerned, the impugned order of Commission has settled the dispute at a figure higher than that offered for the settlement by the petitioner. The petitioner had offered an amount of ₹ 2.72 crores and ₹ 6.41 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue on or before 31st March, 2017 without prejudice to its rights and contentions in this petition. 12. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Revenue contests the statement of Mr. Sridharan and states that amount payable consequent to the impugned order is not ₹ 3 crores but ₹ 34.71 crores for Assessment Year 2013-14. Thus, according to him interim stay be granted only on deposit / payment of amounts of tax determined by the impugned order for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 13. However, at this stage, we are not called upon to decide today in view of the petitioner not pressing for interim relief. Therefore, at this stage, there is no stay of the impugned order dated 29th July, 2016 to the extent it relates to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
