Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 685 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order of Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) - During the pendency of the block assessment proceedings, assessee filed an application before the Settlement Commission - Interference made in the order of Settlement Commission u/s 245D - Nature of jurisdiction exercised - Whether the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will interfere with orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if so, to what extent – Held that:- Following the decision in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KOCHI Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT & WT) AND M/s. JOSCO JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. [2014 (11) TMI 734 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - in Jyotendrasinhji v. S. I. Tripathi and Others - [1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] it has been held that the scope of enquiry, whether by the High Court under article 226 or by this Court under article 136, is also the same - the power of judicial review is not to be exercised to decide the issue on facts or on an interpretation of the documents available - the enquiry by this Court can only be with regard to whether or not the Settlement Commission exercised a jurisdiction that it did not have or, alternatively, if it did have the jurisdiction, whether it erred in the exercise of that jurisdiction. One cannot discount the possibility of the Settlement Commission finding the disclosure of income made by an assessee as being full and true and yet requiring minor adjustments to include even those amounts, which though disputed by the assessee, would nevertheless be offered by the assessee in the interests of putting an end to litigation and in the spirit of settlement - These could be amounts, in respect of which, neither the department nor the assessee have sufficient material to substantiate their contentions, but the assessee is nevertheless willing to give up his claim in the interests of finality to litigation - The consent by an assessee to forgo such amounts, at the suggestion of the Settlement Commission, cannot have the effect of rendering his original disclosure dubious for the purposes of settlement under the Act - it is only in those cases where an assessee resiles from his original declaration of undisclosed income, by suo motu effecting revisions thereto, that he renders his application invalid for the purposes of settlement - the Commission found that there was no material with the Department to justify a demand of further amount from the assessee - Notwithstanding this, additional amounts were offered by the assessee to put a quietus to the matter - the contention of the revenue cannot be accepted that merely by offering additional amounts, the original declaration by the assessee became one that was not full and true for the purposes of settlement – thus, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Settlement commission u/s 245D(4) – Decided against revenue.
|