TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Anil Mehta ORDER The matter comes up on an application No.54766/2015 at the instance of the petitioners praying that an interim order be passed whereby the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act of 1961 ) alleging 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. Mr. Jhanwar, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 after having held that the petitioners had not made a true and full disclosure of their income and had not come before the Settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Madras High Court is prior to the amendment to Section 245D of the Tax of 1961 effective 1st June, 2007, yet the position fundamentally remains the same even thereafter, as evident from the fact that while the judgment of the Madras High Court was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation Anr. ETC. ETC. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 326 ITR 642], the Income Tax Department itself, after the amendment of 2007, relied upon the very same judgment of Ajmera Housing Corporation (Supra) before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission Ors. [MANU/DE/1816/2013]. The law enunciated therein therefore still holds good as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment Commission is prima facie without jurisdiction or lest the interim relief upto 90% of the assessment by the Settlement Commission would not have been allowed by the Apex Court. Counsel is however fair to submit that only an amount of ₹ 1.26 crores of ₹ 3 crores directed by the Apex Court could be deposited by the petitioners for the reason that all their properties have been attached by the Income Tax Department and even though the petitioners are willing for the sale of the said properties and making full compliance with the Apex Court's interim order dated 17.10.2014 with the consideration from the sale/s being appropriated by the Income Tax Department upto ₹ 3 crores, for reasons beyond the control of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been held as under : In view of aforesaid, the relief claimed in the application cannot be granted at this stage. We however find that assessment order and order imposing penalty is under challenge before us and the appeal has been admitted for consideration by framing substantial question of law. Pending appeal, if the respondents are allowed to proceed pursuant to the impugned order and prosecute the appellant, then pending appeal, consequence of the order under challenge is implemented by prosecuting appellant thereby respondents are treating impugned order to be final though admitted for consideration by this Court Mr. Jhanwar submitted that the foundation of the prosecution against the petitioners is the order of Settlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax, Jalandhar [(2011) 1 SCC 1] as also oddly on the pre 1st June, 2007 case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. [(1994) 2 SCC 374]. Heard the counsel for the parties. 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 faci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
