Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 75 - HC - Income TaxJudicial review in respect of final orders passed by the Commission under Section 245D(4) - Held that:- In the present case, the additional income was offered by the Respondent No.2 Assessee, only after the Petitioner had filed its Rule 9 report and it was only during the course of hearing under Section 245D(4) of the Act that the additional income of ₹ 59.11 Crores and ₹ 3 Crores were offered. This also on accepting the view of the Petitioner and without prejudice to their primary contention that the same cannot be added. This acceptance of the further offer only with a view to expeditiously settle the dispute, according to us, in the peculiar facts of the case, cannot be held against the Petitioner. It is clear that disclosure of 'full and true' particulars of undisclosed income and 'the manner' in which such income had been derived are the prerequisites for a valid application under Section 245C(1) of the Act. Additionally, the amount of incometax payable on such undisclosed income is to be computed and mentioned in the application. It needs little emphasis that section 245C(1) of the Act mandates 'full and true' disclosure of the particulars of undisclosed income and 'the manner' in which such income was derived and, therefore, unless the Settlement Commission records its satisfaction on this aspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on the manner covered by the application. Case of Ajmera Housing (2010 (8) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) differentiated. Consequently, the same in the peculiar facts of the present case, cannot be applied. Therefore we do not agree with the submission of the Petitioner that there has been a failure to disclose truly and fully undisclosed income in the settlement application in the peculiar facts of the Petitioner’s case. So far as the other objection is concerned viz failure to disclose the manner in which this income has been derived, we find that the application for settlement sufficiently explains the source of the income being declared. The application mentions how the additional income which is being disclosed as been derived i.e. on application of the ALP in respect of exports made to its Associated Enterprise viz holding company. We do not see any merit in the above submission on behalf of the petitioner. Whether the income has really accrued or arisen must be judged in the light of the reality of the situation. It is on application of the above principle that the Commission has come to the conclusion that unbilled revenue was only a book entry and no real income accrued or arose. This view of the Commission in the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse in the least. It is a possible view. Therefore no reason to interfere with the merits of the decision in the present facts.Therefore, keeping in view the self imposed limitations as set out in Jyotinderesinghji (1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) we see no reason to interfere with the merits of the decision in the present facts.
|