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 818 - HC - Income TaxOrder of settlement commission - Failure to make full and true disclosure - Interpretation of the receipt – Held that:- Revenue was of the view that the receipt indicates an amount by way of interest whereas the assessee contended that it was not received by way of interest and was the principal amount of loan which was received - the Settlement Commission has taken the view that the amount of ₹ 6.00 crores as mentioned in the receipts were loans taken by assessee payable @1.25% for the period of six months. As to what degree can the Court interfere when two possible interpretations are placed before it with regard to a document which is of vital importance and when one of the interpretations has been accepted by the Settlement Commission – Held that:- Relying upon R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission & Another [1989 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] - in the exercise of power of judicial review of a decision of the Settlement Commission, the Court is concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order - the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought not to gone into a factual issue while exercising writ jurisdiction and should not have substituted its opinion against the opinion of the Settlement Commission. The scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution insofar as an order passed by the Settlement Commission u/s 245 D (4) of the Act is concerned, is a very limited one - This Court cannot substitute its view in place of the Settlement Commission particularly on point of interpretation of a particular document - Interference can only be made if there is a fault in the decision making process and not with the decision itself - The interpretation which has been placed by the Settlement Commission on the documents, first of all, results in a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with - the interpretation is not so outlandish to be categorized as arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference - the interpretation sought to be placed by the Revenue may be a possible interpretation but, so, too, would be the interpretation placed by the Settlement Commission which has also been espoused by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. In such a situation no interference with the Settlement Commission’s order is warranted. - Decided against the revenue.
|