9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices and initiating proceedings under the normal provisions of the Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the Revenue in proper disposal of the Assessment for all the above assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 in case the occasion arises. So far as the Assessment Year 2014-15 is concerned, the petitioner had declared in its application for settlement an amount of ₹ 4.99 cores as being the additional income sought to be settled. The amount of tax payable on the assessment of ₹ 4.99 crores has already been paid. The impugned order has enhanced the settlement by further amount of ₹ 1.28 crores. According to the petitioner, the impugned order suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent Revenue P.C. 1. Heard. Rule. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 29th July, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai (the Commission) under Section 254D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned order disposes of the petitioner's application under Section 245C for settlement in respect of the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15. 3. The impugned order settled the petitioner's application to the extent it related to the Assessment Year 2014-15 by determining the settlement at ₹ 6.27 crores from ₹ 4.99 cores, as declared by the petitioner. Thus, resulting in enhancement of taxable income to ₹ 1.28 crores. However, the impugned order rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Commission to consider constituting a Special Bench of more than five members and referring the issue to it. Consistency, certainty and equal application of law to all are the basic constituents of Rule of Law. In its absence, the Commissioner would become a body deciding matters on discretion alone, leading to break down of Rule of Law. Thus, prima facie, the Commission could not have refused to settle the dispute for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 in the face of the decision of the Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was binding upon the three member bench of the Commission which passed the impugned order. 5. Moreover, it an admitted position before us that consequent to the passing of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. 7. It is further submitted by the petitioner that an application for settlement is only one though it may consists of more than one assessment years. Consequently, as held by the Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no requirement of any additional income being disclosed for each of the assessment years for which an application has been filed. Thus, either all the Assessment Years mentioned in the application are to be settled or none at all. It cannot be split so as to settle the dispute for some of the Assessment Years and reject the others. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Commission to the extent it has rejected / not entertained, the petitioner's application for settlement for the Assessment Ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperly followed. However, as the impugned order has determined a further amount of income of ₹ 1.28 crores, the tax payable thereon according to Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would be approximately an amount of ₹ 38.40 lakhs, as basic tax (without surcharge) which is still payable. This, Mr. Jain, on instructions, states will be paid to the Revenue on or before 31st March, 2017. However, on being asked Mr. Jain mentioned to us that along with surcharge the tax payable would be ₹ 42 lakhs (approximately). We direct the petitioner to pay the amount of ₹ 42 lakhs to the Revenue on or before 31st March, 2017. This payment would be without prejudice to its rights and contentions in this petition. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
