HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice ANITA SUMANTH
G.Gopalakrishna Pillai – Appellant
Versus
The Income Tax Settlement – Respondent
Jurisdiction - Settlement Commission - Section 154, 234B - The court ruled that the Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings under Section 154 as it lacks the legislative authority, reinforcing the principle of finality in settlement proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case addressed the issue of whether the Settlement Commission could rectify an order regarding interest under Section 234B using Section 154, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission can re-open its concluded proceedings for levying interest under Section 234B through Section 154 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Settlement Commission's distinct procedural framework does not allow for the reopening of settled matters through Section 154, ensuring accountability and finality in its processes.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
Both Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel, for Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents would accede to the position that the issue that arises in this matter relating to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer for rectification under Section 154 of an order of the Settlement Commission should be decided adverse to the Department and in favour of the petitioner by virtue of a judgment in the case of Brij Lal and Others v.
Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 328 ITR 477).
2.The operative portion of the judgment reads thus:
'III. Whether the Settlement Commission can re-open its concluded proceedings by having recourse to Section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B, if it was not done in the original proceedings?
15. As stated, proceedings before Settlement Commission are similar to arbitration proceedings. It contemplates assessment by settlement and not by way of regular assessment or assessment under section 143(1) or under section 143(3) or under section 144 of the Act. In that sense, it is a Code by itself. It does not begin with the filing of the return but by filing the application for settlement. As stated above, under the Act, procedure for assessment falls in Chapter XIV (in which section 154 falls) which is different from procedure for settlement in Chapter XIX-A in which sections 245C and 245D fall. Provision for levy of interest for default in payment of advance tax under section 234Bfalls in Chapter XVII [Section F] which deals with collection and recovery of tax which as stated above is incidental to the liability to pay advance tax under section 207 (which is also in Chapter XVII) and to the computation of total income in the manner indicated under Chapter XIX-A vide sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C) read with the provisos to section 245C(1) on the additional income tax payable on the undisclosed income. Further, if one examines the provisions of sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C), one finds that various situations are taken into account while computing the additional amount of tax payable, viz., if the applicant has not filed his returns, if he has filed but orders of assessment are not passed or if the proceedings are pending for re-assessment under section 147 (again in Chapter XIV) or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such re-assessment and the applicant has not furnished his return of total income in which case tax has to be calculated on the aggregate of total income as assessed in the earlier proceedings for assessment under section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147 [see section 245C(1B)]. The point to be noted is that in computation of additional income tax payable by the assessee, there is no mention of section 154. On the contrary, under section 245I the order of the Settlement Commission is made final and conclusive on matters mentioned in the application for settlement except in the two cases of fraud and misrepresentation in which case the matter could be re- opened by way of review or recall. Like ITAT, the Settlement Commission is a quasi-judicial body. Under section 254(2), the ITAT is given the power to rectify but no such power is given to the Settlement Commission. Thus, we hold that Settlement Commission cannot reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act. Lastly, one must keep in mind the difference between review/ recall of the order and rectification under section 154. The Schedule of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate invocation of section 154 otherwise there would be no finality to the assessment by settlement which is different from assessment under Chapter XIV where there is an appeal, revision, etc. Settlement of liability and not determination of liability is the object of Chapter XIX-A. Even otherwise, invocation of section 154 on facts of this batch of cases is not just
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.