9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending. 3. The petitioner on 29th Oct., 2003 filed an application under s. 245C(1) before the Settlement Commission offering Rs. 10 lakhs as additional income. By its order on 26th July, 2004 the Settlement Commission rejected the application on two grounds. (1) At the time of filing the application under s. 245C(1) there was no valid pendency of any proceeding as the entire adjudication tax was not paid in the pending appeal; (2) There is no full and true disclosure as the Settlement Commission did not agree that the quantum of undisclosed income declared is justified. Miscellaneous application was taken out for rectification of this order on 17th Sept., 2004. The same was dismissed by the order of the Settlement Commission on 28th June, 2005. 4. The petitioner then filed a fresh application under s. 245C(1) as according to the petitioner there was a valid proceeding pending. The petitioner in the application offered Rs. 15 lakhs instead of Rs. 10 lakhs as offered in the earlier application. According to the petitioner the Settlement Commission was satisfied as regards pendency of proceedings, however, rejected the application by an order dt. 31st Oct., 2006 on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso set out that the CIT (Central) Bangalore has given a report under s. 245D(1) in May, 2004 to the effect that this is not a complex case that requires consideration of a higher forum like the Settlement Commission. The assessee, it is submitted, has not brought out any issue so complex that the CIT(A) cannot determine it. Determining the ownership of lorry or income from lorry are not complex issues which the CIT(A) cannot determine or requires the higher forum of Settlement Commission for determination. It is next submitted that the petitioner had offered to disclose additional income of Rs. 15 lakhs including Rs. 10 lakhs offered in the original application. This would show that the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure in the first application. The application becomes a case wherein multiple disclosure is made. 7. At the hearing of this petition, we had asked the learned counsel as to how a fresh application would be maintainable before the Settlement Commission which is a quasi judicial authority without setting aside the first order of the Commission. Learned counsel submitted that the first application was dismissed on the ground that no proceedings were pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of patent lack of jurisdiction. This is a case where an appeal was presented but was not admitted at the time when the settlement proceedings were disposed of as tax dues had not been paid. The Settlement Commission may have recorded that the proceedings were not pending. That by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the proceedings were not pending. At the highest, it would be a case where the appeal was not admitted. The Settlement Commission also declined to entertain the application on the ground that there was no full and true disclosure. The order of the Settlement Commission is an order of a quasi judicial authority. Once there be an order of a quasi judicial authority, remedy of a person aggrieved is to challenge that order before the competent forum. It would be open to a party to present a second application without the first order being set aside only in a case where an order can be said to be a nullity at law. In other words, where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction. In our opinion, this is not a case of want of jurisdiction. It is a case of failure to exercise jurisdiction and when an order was passed by giving reasons, a second application bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow consider the judgment relied on behalf of the petitioner. Reference was made to the judgment of the Ajay Mahendrakumar Shah vs. CIT (1996) 136 CTR (Guj) 215 : (1997) 92 Taxman 116 (Guj). On facts, the settlement application was rejected on the ground that there was no pendency of the proceedings. Subsequently, notice under s. 148 was issued. A fresh application was made and that also was rejected. The petition was filed in the Gujarat High Court. From the observation in para 4 of the judgment, it is clear that on account of peculiar facts relief was granted. There is no discussion on the issue of maintainability of the second application. This judgment is no authority for the proposition that when the first application is dismissed, a second application is maintainable. 12. It is next submitted that the petitioner in fact had made full and true disclosure. The Commission, it is submitted was bound to give reasons for its conclusion. The Commission has given no such reasons. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the learned Bench of this Court in Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. vs. ITSC & Ors. (2007) 210 CTR (Bom) 197 : (2007) 290 ITR 555 (Bom). In that case, the application befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
