9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for settlement, had made sizable further disclosures after filing the application for settlement. The Supreme Court was of the view that this itself would show that the initial disclosure was not true. It was observed that full and true disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed, is a precondition for valid application u/s.245C(1) of the Act. The Scheme of Chapter XIXA does not contemplate revision of the income as disclosed in the application. If the assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, it would, in a sense, mean making a fresh application in relation to the said case by withdrawing the earlier application. Thus, the assessee cannot revise the application. - CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2894 of 2018 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, there was no shortfall in paying the tax with interest as per the declaration made in the settlement application. The High Court, by the judgment dated 14.06.2016 rendered in the said writ petition, placed the proceedings back before the Settlement Commission for further hearing. The Settlement Commission thereupon resumed hearing and after detailed consideration of all the materials on record, passed the impugned order rejecting the offer of settlement for all the Assessment Years. 4. Learned counsel Shri Soparkar for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Settlement Commission has committed serious error in rejecting the application for settlement for all the Assessment Years on the ground that the petitioner had not mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the order of Settlement Commission would be subject to interference only if it suffers from any malafides or is opposed to the principles of natural justice or is passed against the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Reference in this respect can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi and others, [1993] 201 ITR 611. 6. In this background, we may revert back to the order of the Settlement Commission. Perusal of the order would show that the petitioner was found to be engaged in various land deals, from which, the Department contends, that he had earned sizable unaccounted income. In the settlement application, the petitioner had stated that he along with one N.K. Patel would negotiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence. In this background, the Settlement Commission recorded that the petitioner had not made true and full disclosures in his application for settlement made to the Settlement Commission. 8. Additionally, the Settlement Commission also noted that the petitioner had, from time to time, made several disclosures for two out of the four Assessment Years, namely, A.Y. 1991 92 and 1992 93. The Settlement Commission noted that against the total additional income of ₹ 84.76 Lakhs (rounded off) for the A.Y. 1991 92 to 1994 95 disclosed in the application for settlement, the assessee revised the disclosure under letter dated 27.01.2017 to ₹ 1.20 Crores (rounded off). This additional disclosure of ₹ 84.76 Lakhs (rounded off) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reason to interfere. As noted, the order of Settlement Commission is founded on primary facts; (i) that the AOP was found to be non existent and the petitioner had, therefore, not made true disclosure in this respect and (ii) that all throughout the petitioner shifted his stand on his correct undisclosed income. The existence or otherwise of AOP is a question of fact, in which, we would not interfere, in absence of any perversity in the Settlement Commission s findings. If this be so, the question of true and full disclosure in the settlement application would assume significance. The petitioner had tried to divert a part of his income in the hands of the AOP, which attempt failed. This had co relation to all the Assessment Years and was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2010] 326 ITR 642 (SC) had emphasized the requirement of true and full disclosure in settlement proceedings and high lighted that such disclosures should be made at the outset in the application for settlement itself. It was a case in which a person, who had applied for settlement, had made sizable further disclosures after filing the application for settlement. The Supreme Court was of the view that this itself would show that the initial disclosure was not true. It was observed that full and true disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed, is a precondition for valid application u/s.245C(1) of the Act. The Scheme of Chapter XIX A does not contemplate revision of the income as disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
