Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 543 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order u/s 245D(4) of the Act - order of Settlement Commission - Full and true disclosures not made Held that:- The report u/s 245D(2B) of the Act which had been submitted by the Commissioner to the Settlement Commission indicates that the property was acquired for ₹ 90 crores - Mr Sahni referred to the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 31.12.2010 in which it has been specifically mentioned that the Commissioner in his report under Rule 9 pointed out that the initial acquisition of the property was of ₹ 90 crores and that the premium had been calculated at ₹ 40 crores taking the valuation to ₹ 130 crores at the time of the induction - The order dated 21.05.2012 does not call for any interference - The fact that Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal had together declared a sum of ₹ 16 crores as undisclosed income in respect of the transaction cannot bind the assessee and her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta In any event, what the Settlement Commission has said in the order in respect of Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal, is that as per their calculations the premium amount came to ₹ 13.3 crores but since the applicants had declared more than that, the disclosure needed no disturbance. Rs 6.5 crores had been disclosed in the initial statement given by Sh. Gopal Gupta at the time of the search and seizure operation and the figure was subsequently enhanced to ₹ 7.61 crores at the time the application for settlement was made before the Settlement Commission - The Settlement Commission in its order dated 31.12.2010 did not fix any figure as to the amount of undisclosed amount - the amount declared by the applicants was much more than what had been surrendered by Sh. Gopal Gupta and what had been computed by the Department, the disclosure made by them needed no disturbance - The Revenue cannot attempt to add anything more to this value in the absence of any concrete evidence - If the stand taken by the Revenue were to be accepted, then the value of the property would come to ₹ 158.19 crores - there is not an iota of evidence to indicate that the value of the property was anything but ₹ 130 crores there is no perversity in the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) of the Act Decided against Revenue.
|