Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 998 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTSettlement Application u/s 245C(1) - assessee disclosed additional income during the course of settlement - fresh and substantial disclosure or not - it is far greater than the initial disclosure - Commission accepted the disclosures made by respondent assessee after considering the detailed item-wise explanation submitted by respondent assessee - whether the order of Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act or not and if so, apart from grounds of bias, fraud and malice which of course constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the petitioner or not? - HELD THAT:- Merely because the respondent assessee has disclosed additional income of ₹ 12 Crore during the course of settlement, it cannot be said that Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1961. The disclosure made during the course of the proceedings before the Commission is not new disclosure as found by the Apex Court in case of Ajmera Housing Corpn. [2010 (8) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT] On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commission, it is apparent that the application submitted by the respondent has been dealt with as per the provisions of section 245C and 245D of the Act. The Commission has observed detailed procedure while exercising powers under section 245D(4) of the Act of 1961 by examining thoroughly report submitted by the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997. The Commission has also provided proper opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and therefore the amount which has been determined by the Commission is just and proper. In view of the aforesaid decisions cited by the respondent, the Commission was right in considering the revised offer made by the respondent during the course of the proceedings in the nature of spirit of settlement. Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in case of Ajmera Housing Corpn. (supra), would not come into operation in facts of the case. We are therefore of the opinion that order passed by the Commission does not call for any interference. In view of exercise of the powers by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the examination of the order of the Commission has to be made keeping in mind the scope of judicial review as per the decision of Apex Court in case of Jyotendrasinhji [1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] . Therefore, keeping in view the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and in view of the overall background of facts whereby the Commission has thoroughly minutely examined all the details relating to the issue in question and arrived at a particular finding, same cannot be substituted.
|