9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1048X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said provision, the application filed by the petitioner dated 26.12.2017, for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17 was not allowed to be admitted under Section 245D(1) of the Act. The application dated 26.12.2017, was the second application filed by the petitioner for settlement of his case. The first application was made on 28.07.2017, which was rejected by order dated 10.08.2017, under Section 245D(1) of the Act. The following facts would be necessary for considering as to what relief the petitioner is entitled to in this writ petition. 2.The petitioner is an individual carrying on business of distribution of films produced by third parties primarily in the area of Madurai - Ramnad Districts and occasionally in other districts and he is an assessee on the file of the second respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai. 3.According to the petitioner, his line of business was to ensure the smooth running of his film distribution business, for which purpose, he had opened multiple Bank accounts in various Banks in the names of different persons/entities to ensure timely realizations and also for the sake of his convenience. The advances ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, before the Settlement Commission to settle three issues for the block assessment period 2010-11 to 2016-17. The three issues being, (a) undisclosed income of the petitioner for the relevant assessment years arising out of the materials seized/impounded in the search proceedings and also to determine the consequential tax and interest thereon payable under the Act; (b) the petitioner be granted immunity from all the penalties and prosecution under the Act; (c) the petitioner be granted capitalization of undisclosed income offered before the Settlement Commission. 6.The petitioner would further state that he had paid an additional tax of Rs. 13,31,02,037/- for the relevant assessment years, which were covered in the settlement application. So far as the major portion of the undisclosed income is concerned, which were retrieved by the Department through diary notings, loose sheets at the premises of the petitioner provided page wise explanation with counter party confirmations from the parties to whom monies were advanced for the purpose of production/distribution of films. This second application was rejected vide order dated 05.01.2018, by the Settlement Commission. This order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into consideration by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner had given full explanation of the quantum of transactions by producing necessary documents in assessee's paper book IV for Rs. 386 Crores, which aspect was not appreciated by the Settlement Commission. 10.It is further submitted that the assessee may be justified in requesting the Settlement Commission to examine the voluminous record, but there is sufficient machinery available with the Settlement Commission, apart from the power of the Commission to call for a report in terms of Rule 9 or to exercise its powers under Section 245D(3) of the Act and call for a report from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which procedure was not adopted. Thus, the Settlement Commission ought to have considered that the grounds on which the first application was rejected were made good by the petitioner in the second application, which aspect was not appreciated by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration before the Settlement Commission giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the voluminous documents placed before it and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 245D(1) of the Act. Thus, the impugned order has to be tested on the anvil of the parameters pointed out above and this Court cannot convert itself as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Settlement Commission. Undoubtedly, this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot convert itself into that of an appellate authority over and above the order passed by the Settlement Commission to consider the correctness of the same by re-appreciating the documents placed before the Commission. Thus, we would have to look into the impugned order and the reasons assigned therein. 14.Admittedly, the petitioner does not allege that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. The endeavour of the assessee is to show to the Court that proper appreciation of the documents filed by the assessee was not done by the Settlement Commission, especially when the petitioner had made good whatever was pointed out by the Settlement Commission while rejecting the first application. Thus, I proceed to examine as to whether the reasons assigned by the Settlement Commission are just and proper and as to whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out, the authorized representative relied on paper book IV and paper book V. However, on perusal of the same, the Settlement Commission found that the entries appearing in the seized documents (paper book V) did not match with the explanations appearing in paper book IV and certain entries were pointed out such as the entries appearing in the name of Gnanavel, being part of the seized material placed in paper book V. To the specific query made to the authorized representative to explain 'not done' transaction, it was observed that he was not able to explain and match the transactions with the entries appearing in the paper books submitted by the assessee. 18.Further, the Settlement Commission observed that the explanation of the manner of earning the further additional disclosure of Rs. 5 Crores made in the second application did not form part of the SOF nor the authorized representative of the petitioner was able to explain about the nature of details of the disclosure. 19.Further, it appears that the Settlement Commission pointed out these deficiencies to the authorized representative during the course of hearing, who was unable to give any clarification and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
