TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it would cause prejudice to the Department. Therefore, since the Settlement Commission would be in a position to decide the application along with the point as regards the maintainability in the first instance, there is no prejudice caused to the Department. Since it is also an admitted fact that the respondent has paid the entire tax on a sum exceeding ₹ 300 crore, there is absolutely no prejudice caused to the Department. The petitions are misconceived. - Writ Petition Nos. 47042-47045 of 2015 (T-IT) - - - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - Anand Byrareddy, J. For the Appellant : Shri K V Aravind, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Uday Holla, Senior Adv., Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Adv., Shri Rohit Jain Adv., for Shri Chandrashekahar S, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued calling upon the assessee to file a return of income within a period of 30 days from the date of service of notice, for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, admitting total income of ₹ 40,63,90,380/- for the assessment year 2010-11, ₹ 195,41,53,360/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and ₹ 108,28,25,530/- for the assessment year 2012-13. Notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act was issued on 8.7.2014, as the provisions of Section 153A was not applicable for the assessment year 2013-14. On 24.03.2015, the assessee had thereafter filed revised return of income for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Settlement Commission it transpires, has passed an order on 7.4.2014 under Section 245D(1) of the IT Act by allowing the application to be proceeded further. The Settlement Commission had then called for a report under Section 245D(2B) from the petitioner, vide notice dated 17.04.2015. The Commissioner of Income Tax had submitted a report as required under the said section, vide letter dated 26.05.2015. Thereafter, the Settlement Commission has passed an order dated 4.6.2015 under Section 245D(2C) of the IT Act and proceeded to declare the application filed by the assessee as not valid, by keeping open the issue regarding full and true disclosure of income to be examined in the course of the proceedings under Section 245D(4) of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an (2009) 184 Taxman 85 (SC) , wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the case of the Department that the assessee had failed to make full and true disclosure in the first instance and the said declaration by way of second declaration, could not be a ground for admitting the application under Section 245D and since the petition was filed only against an order of the Settlement Commission admitting the application of the assessee under Section 245D, the court did not feel it proper to interfere at that stage. But, it was made clear that the point of maintainability of the application could be raised as a contention by the Department before the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission would be entitled to examine that question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
