9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the schedule prescribed by the provision of law. A detailed procedure has been observed while exercising power under section 244D so much so that a report has also been examined thoroughly by the said Commission. During the course of hearing proper opportunity was also given to the respective parties and therefore, amount which have been determined by the said Commission are just and proper. The issue before the Court in the background of this fact is whether during the course of hearing even the amount which has been increased by way of additional disclosure whether can be entertained or considered by the Commission or not? Recently, if we recall that this very issue has been dealt with in detail and taking note of the decision delivered by this Court, in a group of petition which has considered the said issue in a decision delivered on 12.07.2016 it was found by the Court that if during the course of proceedings if the revised offers are being generated then in the nature of spirit of Settlement the same is permitted to be considered by the Commission. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the said Commission does not call for any interference - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject which was ongoing. The said Director Mr. Kamal Agarwal had, during the process of search, admitted ₹ 40 crores as unaccounted cash profit from on money collected. During the course of search operation, the authority found that undisclosed income of ₹ 4 crores and net profit of ₹ 1.05 crores totaling around ₹ 5.05 crores as income chargeable to tax for the current financial year 2011-12 relevant to assessment year 2012-13 and agreed to pay the tax on this undisclosed amount. It is in the background of this material which has been gathered, the proceedings came to be initiated. Resultantly, the assessee filed an application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 20.03.2013. In response to the application received by the Settlement Commission, a report came to be called under Section 245D(2B) of the Act vide communication dated 12.04.2013 from the office of the petitioner. The said requested report, after a detailed inquiry, came to be submitted before the authority, in which, the Commissioner of Income Tax-I had submitted and analyzed the detailed material which was part of the search process and ultimately, submitted the exhausting report before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant any waiver or reduction of interest chargeable under Sections 234A and 234C and, as a result of it, keeping the interest of Revenue also in mind, the interest under Section 234B of the Act was ordered to be charged up to the date of passing of the order under Section 245D(1) of the Act in view of the decision has relied upon by the Commission. 3. Upon hearing both the sides, the computation of total income and the payment of taxes came to be determined and the applicant was ordered to pay tax including interest as per the order within a period of 35 days from the date of receipt of this order which from the record it is found to have been paid. While dealing with the issue of capitalization of income during the course of hearing, the applicants themselves have not pressed the issue and therefore, the said issue was not dealt with on merit. Sofar as question of immunity from prosecution and penalty is concerned, a request was made by the applicant to grant the same in view of Section 245H of the Act and having found and satisfied, the Commission accepted the request precisely on the satisfaction that no attempt was made by the applicant to conceal any material fact durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision can be allowed during the course of proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is a serious procedural infirmity on the part of the respondent No.1 viz. the Settlement Commission not giving complete go by to the report which has been filed in Rule 9 and thereby the order was passed by the respondent Commission is bad in law. It was contended before the Court that there was a complete failure on part of the applicant to full discloser of the undisclosed income and thereby requested the court not to entertain the petition. 5. As against this, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that while dealing with the application not only the Commission has considered the detailed reports submitted dated 29.08.2013 but also considered the intention of the applicants. There is a specific finding arrived at by the Commission during the course of hearing that there was full cooperation on part of the applicants and to the fullest extent the disclosure was made by the applicants. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Commission has taken note of the situation that there was no concealment on the part of the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and anr vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. the issue has been dealtwith and exactly we here in the present case also found the similar issue having been arose before the Settlement Commission. We are of the opinion that the order passed by the said Commission does not call for any interference. In the background of these facts, the following paras of the said decision are worked to be taken note of: Dealing with the grievance of the Commissioner that he was not apprised of the revised settlement application filed by the assessee on 19th September, 1994, i.e. after the hearing on the question of whether or not the assessee s application is to be proceeded with in terms of Section 245D(1) of the Act had concluded, disclosing additional income of ₹ 11.41 crores, the High Court observed that order dated 17th November, 1994 was bad, illegal and ab-initio void being in breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the High Court held that all subsequent proceedings and orders passed therein would be of no consequence and they had to be set aside because the subsequent order under Section 245D(4) of the Act could survive only subject to the validity of the order require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
