9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent herein was ₹ 2,10,06,060/-. After the search was completed under Section 132 the said 2nd respondent/applicant was issued with the notice dated 4.1.2010 under Section 153. The last date for filing returns expired on 03.02.2010. 2nd respondent/applicant initially filed an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 12.11.2010. As mentioned elsewhere in the order, the said application was also dismissed by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission by its order dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/applicant filed a return on 01.12. 2010 under Section 153 A of the Act and a fresh application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.12.2010 before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. The application filed before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a total income of ₹ 5,05,69,810/- for these assessment years consisting of ₹ 2,95,63,750/ - as the additional income for the purpose of settling the case under chapter XIX-A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 1st respondent Settlement Commission after considering the reports of the petitioner Income Tax Department added another su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petitions, inasmuch as the additional amount of income declared in the returns filed pursuant to notice issued under Section 153A by them was far lesser than the amount of income ultimately arrived by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned order. 5. It is further stated that the amount the additional income offered for settling the case was not different from the amount that was of in the revised returns filed on 20.12.2010 pursuant to notice dated 41.2010 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was no further additional disclosure of income over and above ₹ 50,00,000/- . 6. It is further submitted that there there was a huge variance between the additional amount declared in the applications filed under Section 245C and the amount arrived by the first respondent for settling the cases of the respective 2nd respondent/applicant (2nd respondent in the respective writ petitions). 7. It is therefore submitted that the first respondent settlement Commission ought to have dismissed the respective applications in absence of true and full disclosure at the time when reports were filed under Section 245D(3) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving views/objections regarding the adequacy of the additional income disclosed by the 2nd respondent/applicant, payment of additional tax thereon and interest, etcetera and regarding compliance of the proviso to Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that there was no procedural irregularity. 14. It is submitted that after receipt of the said report filed the Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 245D (2B) and after recording satisfaction to proceed the settlement application, the Settlement Commission passed order under Section 245 D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961by allowing the application filed by the 2nd respondent/applicant. 15. It is submitted that only after order under Section 245D (2C) was passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission, a comprehensive report under Rule 9 of the Income Tad Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 was called for from the Commissioner of Income Tax. 16. It is only after considering the submissions of the Commissioner of Income tax and the respective 2nd respondent/applicant ( 2nd respondent in the respective writ petitions) the first respondent Settlement Commission passed the impugned order unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1961. Under these circumstances, all the three concerns approached the Settlement Commission. 26. Eventually, all the applications filed for settling the case under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowed by the first respondent Settlement Commission by its separate orders dated 28.3.2012. 27. It is submitted that as far as facts are concerned, the finding of facts by the first respondent Settlement Commission and final. 28. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is the ultimate fact finding authority and therefore, it cannot be disturbed. In this connection attention was drawn to the following cases of the Courts:- i) R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) and another (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) ii) Saurasthra Cement Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs , (2013) 22 GSTR 460 (Guj.) iii) Shriyans Prasad Jain vs. Income Tax Officer Others, (1993) 204 ITR 616 (SC) iv) Vishwa Nath Gupta vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2017) 395 IYTR 165 (Del.) (HC) iv)Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and another , (2017) 390 ITR 306 (Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were dismissed by orders dated 16.11.2010 in the case of these 2nd respondent/applicant (2nd respondent in W.P.No.24179 of 2013( The Madras Pharmaceuticals and W.P.No.24278 of 2013 (The Accent Pharma) W.P.No.24147 of 2013 (Marlal labs) does not operate as a bar under Section 245 K of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from filing 2nd application. 36. These 2nd respondent/applicants therefore filed fresh application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.12.201 and 16.12.2020. On the same day, they also filed their revised returns in response to notices dated 4.1.2010 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 37. As far as the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.24147of 2013 is concerned, (M/s.Marlal Labs) both revised returns under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the application to settle the case under Chapter XIX A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were filed on the same date i.e. 2.12.2010. 38. I shall refer to the income declared and the additional income determined by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned orders to determine as to whether the 1st respondent Settlement Commission was justified in settling the case of the respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,09,40,549/- Total 7,06,23,537/- 6,85,21,882 3,97,45,419/- 5,54,63,342/- 19,46,08,762 41. The total income for the block assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 was ₹ 7,06,23,537/- in the original returns. After a search was completed under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the 2nd respondent /applicant was issued with a notice dated 4.1.2010 under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The last date for filing returns expired on 3.2.2010 under the aforesaid provision. 42. The 2nd respondent/applicant M/s.Maral Labs [the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.24147 of 2013] filed a belated return on 20.12.2010. On the same day, the 2nd respondent/applicant also filed an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. 43. In the said application, the additional amount of income offered by the 2nd respondent - 2nd respondent/applicant for these block assessment years was ₹ 6,85,21,882/-. In the revised returns, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a total income of ₹ 13,91, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010) 8 SCC 739 held as under :- 35. It is plain from the language of sub-Section (4) of Section 245-D of the Act that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pass such orders as it may think fit is confined to the matters covered by the application and it can extend only to such matters which are referred to in the report of the Commissioner under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (3) of the said Section. A full and true disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed by the assessee, being a precondition for a valid application under Section 245- C(1) of the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the application against Item 11 of the form. Moreover, if an assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he would be making a fresh application in relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier application. In this regard, Section 245-C(3) of the Act which prohibits the withdrawal of an application once made under sub- Section (1) of the said Section is instructive inasmuch as it manifests that an assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the additional amount of income as disclosed in the application filed under Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the additional amount determined by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. It shows that the amount determined by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission in the above two of the cases was double the amount that was declared in the application filed by the said 2nd respondent/applicants. Therefore, W.P.No.24147 of 2013 deserves to be allowed. Madras Pharmaceuticals :W.P.No.24179 of 2013. 53. This case pertains to Black Assessment year 2003-2004 to 2008-2009. The following table explains the income that was originally disclosed in the returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additional income offered under Section 245 C and the amount of income determined by the first respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned order. Assessment Year (1) Income returned originally (Rs.) (2) Additional Income offered under Section 245 D of I.T.Act (Rs.) (3) Revised Income filed 16.12.2020 (Rs.) (4) Total Additional income determined by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55. The 2nd respondent/2nd respondent/applicant initially filed an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 12.11.2010. As mentioned elsewhere in the beginning, the said application was dismissed by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission by its order dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/2nd respondent/applicant filed a return on 16.12.2010 and a revised application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14.12.2010 before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. 56. In the application filed before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a total income of ₹ 18,49,20,580/- for these assessment years consisting of ₹ 11,55,18,508/- as the additional income over and above the amount of ₹ 6,94,02,072.- for the purpose of settling the case under chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 57. The 1st respondent Settlement Commission after considering the reports of the petitioner Income Tax Department further added another sum ₹ 5,95,00,142/-. This amount is almost an addition of 51.5% to the additional amount offered by the 2nd respondent/applicant in the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 60. The total income for the block assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 in the returns filed by the said 2nd respondent/applicant/2nd respondent herein was ₹ 2,10,06,060/-. After the search was completed under Section 132 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961,the said 2nd respondent/applicant was issued with the notice dated 4.1.2010 under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The last date for filing returns expired on 03.02.2010. 61. The 2nd respondent/applicant initially filed an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 12.11.2010. As mentioned elsewhere in the order, the said application was also dismissed by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission by its order dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/applicant filed a return on 01.12. 2010 under Section 153 A of the Act and a fresh application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.12.2010 before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. 62. The application filed before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a total income of ₹ 5,05,69,810/- for these assessment years consisting of ₹ 2,95,63,750/ - as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
