Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 629 - HC - Income TaxProsecution under Section 276C(1) - willful attempt to evade tax by the petitioners by the Income Tax Department before the Special Court Economic Offence, Jaipur be stayed/suspended during the pendency of the present petition - Held that:- The order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Settlement Commission is indeed under challenge before this Court. The petitioners appear to have made out a prima facie case with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission for the reason that vide order dated 17.10.2014 on proceedings commencing with an interim order in the present writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has required the petitioners to deposit only ₹ 3 crores of ₹ 30 crores of the due tax “assessed” by the Settlement Commission. It also prima facie appears that in view of the state of law prior to the amendment of the Act of 1961, effective 1st June, 2007 as reflected in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation (2010 (8) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to make a regular assessment qua an applicant who approached it for a settlement under Section 245C(1) of the Act of 1961. No clearly enunciated amendment altering this state of law has been brought to my notice. That no change of a substantive nature was made appears to be an admitted fact as reflected in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. [2013 (7) TMI 95 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where even after the amendment of the Act of 1961, effective 1st June, 2007, the Income Tax Department itself relied upon the Ajmera Housing Corporation (supra) decided by the Apex Court prior to the amendment, to put forth its contention on the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission and for it not to exceed its brief beyond the application for settlement filed before it. The issue before this Court regarding the power of the Settlement Commission, despite finding lack of true and full disclosure, to make a regular assessment qua the applicant before it, is in the circumstances a seriously contested one in respect of which no definitive opinion can be formed at the interim stage, as it would require an extended hearing. Consequently, in the overall facts of the case, would direct that even though the prosecution against the petitioners initiated by the Income Tax Department may continue during the pendency of the petition, no final order thereon be passed till further direction of this Court. During their prosecution, the petitioners shall be free to take their remedies in accordance with law.
|