Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 874 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order of Settlement Commission - full and true disclosure or not - additional income offered during section 245D(4) - HELD THAT:- Proceedings before the Settlement Commission are in the nature of settlement between the parties and are not strictly speaking adjudicatory proceedings. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission, it is abundantly clear that both the respondents had not accepted the liability of 5% of trading expenses, but in the spirit of settlement offered to pay the amount computed by the AO with a view to bring the quietus to the matter and buy peace of mind. This court is of the view that the offer to pay such amounts in addition to the amounts disclosed in the applications under section 245C cannot be said to be disclosure of any further amounts under that section as the same have been offered only to bring about a settlement. The fact that the applicants have offered to pay such amounts, the liability whereof has not been accepted by them, cannot be termed as non-disclosure of full and true facts in the applications under section 245C of the Act. Under the circumstances, considering the amounts so offered by way of settlement which are quite meagre considering the overall disclosure made, this court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission warranting interference in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the present case, no revised application under sub-section (1) of section 245C of the Act had been filed by the respondents revising the initial disclosures. The respondents/ applicants have not made any revised disclosures, nor have they accepted the liability to pay the additional amounts. Nonetheless, in the spirit of settlement, the respondents applicants have, offered to pay such amounts to bring a quietus to the matter and buy peace of mind. Moreover, the additional amounts which the respondents have agreed to pay are meagre considering the overall amounts disclosed in the applications under section 245C(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, the contention that there was no full and true disclosure in the applications made under section 245C(1) of the Act, does not merit acceptance. Insofar as the contention that the impugned order is a non-reasoned order, from the facts noted hereinabove, it is evident that the Settlement Commission has applied its mind to the nature of disclosures, the contentions of the revenue and the explanation of the respondent applicants and has given its findings thereon. On a perusal of the impugned order it is not possible to state that it is a non-speaking order. Such contention is, therefore, misconceived. This court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference.
|