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
| 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:-
(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
Ajmera Housing Corporation vs. CIT
Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax: (2010) 8 SCC 739
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Emta Coal Limited
CIT vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors.
Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors.
: Assessment – In an application under S.245C of Act, for settlement of applicant's income-tax case, there should be disclosure of income not earlier disclosed before the Assessing Officer
The court affirmed that the Settlement Commission's findings are conclusive unless there are grave procedural defects, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review over such orders.
The Settlement Commission cannot waive or reduce mandatory interest obligations under the Income Tax Act, with interest on undisclosed income calculated from the due tax payment date until the Commis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Settlement Commission's authority to consider undisclosed income and loans not found during the search operation, and the treatment of loans as....
Additional disclosures of income during pendency of Settlement Commission, which were not made available at time of application by assessee under Section 254C of Act there is a sufficient cause to re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.