SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1802

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Gupta Trademart Pvt Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 8677/2014 Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8699/2014
Decided On : 25-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Sakshi Srivastava, Adv. with Mr. Bhrigu Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 245D(4) & 245C(1) - Settlement applications - The petitioner challenged the orders of the Income Tax Settlement Commission that rejected their claims for settlement due to incomplete disclosure of income. The court emphasized the necessity of full and true disclosure for a valid settlement application. The Commission assumed the role of an assessing officer, which was beyond its jurisdiction, leading to the court's conclusion that the applicants were not afforded a fair hearing as required by the principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 8, 28, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, a private company and its managing director, sought to challenge orders from the Income Tax Settlement Commission after their settlement application was deemed valid. They contested the additional tax assessments imposed due to alleged incomplete disclosures during the compliance process. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Settlement Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to adhere to proper procedures, including neglecting to await a forensic report relevant to the assessed income. The matter was remanded for reassessment with due process. (Paras 28, 34)

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's actions were lawful when it rejected the petitioner's disclosure and proceeded to assess undisclosed income without proper hearing or evidence. (Paras 6, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that true and full disclosure is essential under Section 245C(1) for a valid application, and without it, the Settlement Commission cannot proceed; further, the non-observance of procedural fairness rendered its decision improper. (Paras 18, 32)

Result: Writ petitions partly allowed, remanding the matter back to the Settlement Commission for proper reassessment. (Paras 34)

Table of Content
1. challenge to settlement commission orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. application for settlement history and issues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments on jurisdiction of the commission. (Para 9 , 10)
4. counterarguments by revenue representative. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. court's observations on commission's jurisdiction. (Para 18 , 19)
6. no obligation of commission to remand. (Para 20 , 21)
7. impact of non-disclosure on commission's decision. (Para 22 , 23 , 25)
8. fair opportunity and procedural fairness required. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
9. remand for reassessment with due process. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT

1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners assailing the order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission while exercising the powers under Section 245D(4) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short, IT Act) as also the orders dated 18/06/2014 & 21/02/2014 respectively passed under Section 245D(6B) of the IT Act.

2. The petitioner-company which is a private limited company has filed the first writ petition while Mr. Rajendra Gupta, who is Managing Director of the petitioner-company, has also filed separately the second writ petition.

3. Both the petitioners by way of these writ petitions have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission while exercising the powers under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act whereby the settlement application filed by the petitioners was disposed of.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present writ petitions, it would be apposite to quote the relevant provisions relating to settlement of cases as provided under Chapter XIX of the IT Act which are as under:-

    "245C. [(1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the [Assessing Officer], the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: [Provided that no such application shall be made unless,--

    (i) in a case where proceedings for assessment or reassessment for any of the assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B in case of a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C have been initiated, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds fifty lakh rupees, [(ia) in a case where-- (A) the applicant is related to the person referred to in clause (i) who has filed an application (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as ?specified person); and (B) the proceedings for assessment or re-assessment for any of the assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B in case of the applicant, being a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C, have been initiated, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees,]

    (ii) in any other case, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees, and such tax and the interest thereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been paid on or before the date of making the application and the proof of such payment is attached with the application.]

    [Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (ia),--

    (a) the applicant, in relation to the specified person referred to in clause (ia), me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top