9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 725X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities have failed to make out any case that any documents or materials which they had placed or filed by it before the learned Income Tax Settlement Commission/respondent no.1 was sufficient for rejection of the application of settlement filed by the petitioner. iii) On perusal of report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which was filed by the petitioner before the learned Settlement commission in objection to the settlement application of the assessee/respondent no.2, I do not find any specific and cogent material for rejection of the settlement application in question rather petitioner itself has admitted that the respondent no. 2 has disclosed the undisclosed income though under compulsion and itself prayed for further enquiry to find out material against the assessee/respondent no.2 for contradicting the claim of the assessee/respondent no. 2 which shows that its Report under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, had no sufficient materials and had no substance for rejection of the claim made under settlement application in question filed by the assessee/respondent no. 2. iv) Petitioner/Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iple Commissioner of Income Tax concerned and the said Report was received by the Learned Settlement Commission/respondent no. 1 on 3rd September, 2015. In the aforesaid Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 petitioner/Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-2) objected to the settlement of the case of the assessee/respondent no. 2 by alleging that it has not at all made true and correct disclosure of its undisclosed income before the respondent Settlement Commission and that the respondent no. 2 has failed to establish the manner in which profit was earned and in the aforesaid Report it also alleged that on analysis of facts and figures available in the return of income of the respondent no. 2 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 it was found that the assessee respondent no. 2 has earned ₹ 17,98,022/- and has profit against gross receipts /sale of ₹ 31,80,72,237/- which showed 0.566% profit on sale/gross receipts and in view of such finding it was contended that to earn trading profit of ₹ 1.9 Crore the assessee must have sale/gross receipt of ₹ 336,28,31,858/- and also must have incurred expenditure for corresp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the whole case of the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures and is without any evidence in support of its suspicious claim. Respondent no. 2 also contended that it has fulfilled the criteria required for availing itself of immunity from penalty and prosecution and it has cooperated with the Settlement Commission and also extended full co-operation at every stage of the proceeding right from the survey operation conducted under Section 133A of the Act. Learned Settlement Commission/respondent no. 1 considering the submission and documents filed both by the petitioner and the assessee/respondent no.2 allowed the application for settlement in question by passing the impugned order on 29th July, 2016 under Section 245 D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by inter alia recording its conclusion as would appear from Paragraph-8 of the said impugned order which are as follows: We have considered the facts of the case, submissions of the A.R., report of Pr. CIT and arguments of CIT (DR). We are in agreement with the above submissions of the A.R. We also agree with the A.R. that once the documents have been impounded in the course of survey, contents of the documents are presumed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity the decision maker s opinion on facts is final. But while examining and scrutinizing the decision making process it becomes inevitable to also appreciate the facts of a given case as otherwise the decision cannot be tested under the grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. How far the court of judicial review can re-appreciate the findings of facts depends on the ground of judicial review. For example, if a decision is challenged as irrational, it would be well-nigh impossible to record a finding whether a decision is rational or irrational without first evaluating the facts of the case and coming to a plausible conclusion the then testing the decision of the authority on the touch-stone of the tests laid down by the court with special reference to a given case. This position is well settled in Indian administrative law. Therefore, to a limited extent of scrutinizing the decision making process, it is always open to the court to review the evaluation of facts by the decision maker. I would like to refer the relevant portion of the same judgment - Placitum 24 25 at Page 366 367 which according to me is relevant for this case which are as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute a separate and independent category has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant. 25. In Shriyans Prasad Jain v. ITO [1993] 204 ITR 616 (SC) the Supreme Court, speaking through the same learned judge, observed as follows (page 627): Mr. Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this court would not go into questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC) this court can interfere with the Commission s order only if it is found to be contrary to any of the provisions of the Act . To the same effect is the earlier decision of this court in R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) [1989] 176 ITR 169 (SC). Judgment relied upon by the assessee/respondent no. 2 in the case of Jyotendrasinhji (supra) para 16 of which is as follows: 16. It is true that the finality clause contained in Section 245-I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf; may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) (1989) 1 SCC 628: 1989 SCC (Tax) 124: (1989) 176 ITR 169 which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J., observed that in such a case this court is concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order . The learned Judge added judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process . Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W. Police v. Evans (1982) 1 WLR 1155: (1982) 3 ALL ER 141. Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders of the Settlement commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that the order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution of India, in the income tax settlement proceedings before the Settlement Commission, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Settlement Commission in this Writ Petition and dismissing the same for the following reasons: i) Petitioner/Income Tax authorities have failed to make out any case in this Writ Petition that the learned Settlement Commission has acted in any manner contrary to or in violation of any provision of law in course of impugned settlement proceeding or in passing the impugned order or that the same is not legal and valid or without jurisdiction and in disregard to the materials available before the learned Income Tax Settlement Commission. ii) Petitioner/Income Tax authorities have failed to make out any case that any documents or materials which they had placed or filed by it before the learned Income Tax Settlement Commission/respondent no.1 was sufficient for rejection of the application of settlement filed by the petitioner. iii) On perusal of report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which was filed by the petitioner before the learned Settlement commission in objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
