Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Ravichandrabaabu, J.
Abdul Rahim – Petitioner
Vs.
Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.14404 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.17004 & 17005 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sivaraman
For the Respondent: Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Income Tax, 1961 - Section 245C - Interest Thereon - Ernavur Property - Acquired From Unaccounted Sources and That Rental Income - Petitioner is a respondent - He is aggrieved against order passed by Settlement Commission of wherein and whereby Settlement Application filed by petitioner was not allowed to be proceeded with and treated as invalid of said Act - In other words Settlement Application filed by petitioner was rejected by Settlement Commission - Consequently petitioner seeks for a direction to 1st respondent to reconsider said application and to pass fresh orders of said Act - Following are facts and circumstances as projected by petitioner resulted in filing present writ petition - Survey operation was conducted at residential and business premises of petitioner - A cpu and pen drives were impounded - Subsequently a search and seizure operation was initiated of said Act on very same day at residential and business premises of petitioner - Certain documents were seized and sworn statements were recorded on various dates - petitioner approached 1st respondent Settlement Commission and filed an application of Act for settling following issues – Held, Proceedings pending before any authority under Act relating to that assessment year have to be transferred to Commission and entire case for that assessment year will be dealt with by Commission itself words at any stage of a case relating to him only make it clear that pendency of proceedings relating to that assessment year whether before assessing officer or before appellate or revisional authority is no bar to filing of an application so long as application complies with requirement - Thus in my considered view is not imposing total bar on subsequent application as apprehended by petitioner in this case - On other hand such total bar is applicable only in respect of cases falling - As already stated supra bar is against an application in respect of same assessment so long as applicant has not suffered any such disqualifications as stated - Thus I find that apprehension of petitioner about anticipated total bar in approaching commission in future is not well-founded - Considering above stated facts and circumstances I find that order passed by Settlement Commission impugned in this writ petition does not warrant any interference more particularly by exercising discretionary jurisdiction of this Court - Order Accordingly.
The petitioner is an assessee under the 2nd respondent. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.03.2018, wherein and whereby, the Settlement Application filed by the petitioner was not allowed to be proceeded with and treated as invalid under Section 245D(2C) of the said Act. In other words, the Settlement Application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the said application and to pass fresh orders under Section 245D(2C) of the said Act.
2. The following are the facts and circumstances, as projected by the petitioner, resulted in filing the present Writ Petition.
(i) Survey operation under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on 24.08.2015 at the residential and business premises of the petitioner. A CPU and 5 pen drives were impounded. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was initiated under Section 132 of the said Act on the very same day at the residential and business premises of the petitioner. Certain documents were seized and sworn statements were recorded on various dates. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent, Settlement Commission and filed an application under Section 245C of the Act for settling the following issues.
(a) To settle the issue of the undisclosed income of the applicant for AY's 2010-11 to 2016-17 arising out of the materials seized/found/impounded pursuant to search proceedings initiated u/s 132 of the IT Act 1961 on 24-08-2015, at the residence of the applicant at No.34, Amman Kovil Street, Chicken Market, Chennai-1 and the business premises of the applicant at 34 & 35, Amman Kovil Street, Chicken Market, Chennai-1 and also to determine the consequential tax and interest thereon payable under the Act.
(b) The applicant be granted immunity from all the penalties and prosecution under the Act.
(c) The applicant be granted capitalization of the undisclosed income offered before the Hon'ble Settlement Commission;
(d) The applicant be granted such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and property by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission having regard to the facts and nature and circumstances of the applicant's case.
(ii) The petitioner had paid the additional tax and interest thereon for the impugned assessment years 2010-11 to 2016-17 covered in their settlement application. The first respondent, by order dated 02.02.2018 made under section 245D(1) of the said Act, allowed the Settlement Application to be proceeded with further. The 1st respondent, in that proceedings held that there was no material on record to prove that full and true disclosure had not been made by the applicant in the Settlement Application. In pursuant to the said order dated 02.02.2018 and on notice, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a report under Section 245D(2B) of the said Act on 05.02.2018. It was the contention of the Department that the undisclosed amount as per the impounded CPU and pen drives is Rs.9.29 crores whereas the petitioner has only offered additional income of Rs.32,00,000/- before the 1st respondent; that gold jewelry weighing 1535.6 grams with value of Rs.37,76,097/- was not explained satisfactorily and therefore, the same was treated as acquired from unaccounted sources and that rental income of Rs.25,000/- per month from Ernavur property was an undisclosed income from house property. A copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner filed their reply on 19.03.2018 to the said report. However, the 1st respondent, vide impugned order held that the petitioner had caused suppression and misrepresentation of facts thereby violated the requirement of the full and true disclosure of additional income. Thus, the first respondent, not allowed the petitioner's application to be proceeded with and treated the same as invalid under Section 245D(2C) o
