TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees. Therefore, the return of income, which is contemplated under clause (a) of the proviso mandates the assessee to file a return, which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of the Act and (b) the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees. Therefore, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner to state that the petitioners were justified in filing NIL returns before the Assessing Officer as clause (a) under the proviso is only a technical requirement. Requirement is a pre-requisite to be entitled to file the application before the Commission and cannot be reduced to an insignificant or a mere technical requirement.For all the above reasons, the petitioners have not made out any case for interference with the orders passed by the Settlement Commission. - W.P.Nos.21757 & 21758, 23697 & 23698, 21997 to 21999, 22041 to 22043 of 2005, W.P.No.21757 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 12-8-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. T. N. Seetharaman For the Respondent : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... funds between the family members and business concerns mentioned above. A search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 13.08.2002, in all the business establishment workshops, residential premises etc., in which about 12kgs of gold were seized apart from that fixed deposit receipts, cash certificates, books of accounts, etc. Pursuant to the search and seizure operation, notices were issued under Section 158BC of the Act, calling upon the petitioners and others to furnish returns setting forth total income including undisclosed income for the said block period. Uniformly all the petitioners filed NIL returns in Form-2B on 09.07.2004, before the Assessing Officer and after about a month, filed Settlement Application before the Settlement Commission, offering undisclosed income as additional income. The petitioners through their authorised representative appeared before the Commission and submitted regarding the nature and circumstances of the case and the complexity of the investigation involved. They submitted that in view of multiple business activities carried on by the group and intermingling of funds between the individuals as well as the firms, in which they are partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is further authorised to call a report from the Commissioner and consider such a report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, to decide the complexity of this case. In the instant case, the said process has been fully followed and the Commission rightly came to a conclusion that the case does not have any complexity. It is further submitted that the Settlement Commission has rightly noted that though assessee had filed the return after a lapse of one year of the service of notice, the Assessing Officer had issued a detailed questionnaire and on receipt of the reply was ready to complete the block assessment within the period allowed by the provisions of the Act and that the assessee after having belatedly filed the return, did not furnish the reply, apart from retracting their sworn statements given at the time of search and seizure action. Further, it is submitted that the provisions of Section 245C(1) requires that the application contains a full and true disclosure of the income not disclosed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, partial or untrue or false disclosure would dis-entitle the assessee to invoke the remedy before the Commission. In suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Kumar Chopda, assisted by Mr.Raj Kumar Jhabakar, learned Standing counsels for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 9. The order impugned in these Writ Petitions is an order passed by the Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Chapter XIX-A of the Act deals with the Settlement of cases. Section 245A is the definition section, which defines case under clause (b) of the Section to mean any proceedings under the Act for the assessment or re-assessment of any person in respect of any year or years, or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such assessment or reassessment, which may be pending before the Income Tax Authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of Section 245C is made. Proviso states that where any appeal or application for revision has been preferred after the expiry of the period specified for the filing of such appeal or application for revision and which has not been admitted, such appeal or revision shall not be deemed to be a proceedings pending within the meaning of this clause. 10. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the petitioners before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e materials contained in the Commissioner's report; (ii) having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case; or (iii) the complexity of the investigation involved therein. The Commission, in the impugned order, has considered the nature and circumstances of the case taken note of and the observations contained in the Commission's report and held that there is no complexity of investigation. 13. The question would be whether this Court exercising Writ jurisdiction would re-examine such factual finding recorded by the Commission. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of N.Krishnan vs. Settlement Commission reported in [1989] 180 ITR 585, has held that the Court should be slow in interfering with the Settlement Commission's order and can be interfered if there are grave procedural defects, such as violation of mandatory procedural requirements of the provisions in Chapter XIX of the Act and/or violation of the rules of natural justice are made out or if it is found that there is no nexus between the reasons given and the decision taken by the Commission and that the Court cannot interfere either with an error of fact or error of law alleged t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmission by the Revenue found favour with the Settlement Commission to examine the nature and circumstances of the case. The Commission noted the conduct of the petitioners and comparing the huge seizure of unaccounted assets at the time of search and the additional income offered in the Settlement Application is not prima facie full and true. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Commission stating that there is no complexity of investigation having been rendered taking note of the nature and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the materials contained in the Commissioner's report, the said findings cannot be disagreed on the mere fact that there are several partners and several firms alone would not result in complexity of investigation, especially when the Revenue has clearly set out as to what is the nature and circumstances of the case. 18. In Harphool Singh vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and Ors., reported in [1995] 215 ITR 216, a Writ Petition filed challenging an order of Settlement Commission was dismissed holding that whether the application filed under Section 245C of the Act is to be admitted or not, would depend on the facts and circumstances of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Commissioner of Income Tax submitted a report under Section 245D(1) and categorically held that the complexity of the investigations were involved. In the said case, the assessment spread over 15 assessment years involving 1900 lease transactions and case required examination and cross examination of multiple parties, who were spread across the length and breadth of the country and the case involved ₹ 420 crores and disputed additions and dis-allowance and the documents were admittedly lost owing to fire etc., Inspite of such being the materials contained in the Commissioner's report, the Settlement Commission rejected the petition merely on the ground that the petitioner therein had not made full and true disclosure. Thus, under the said facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the Settlement Commission committed an error coming to the conclusion that there are no complexities of investigation. 23. Thus, such an order would fall within the exception carved out as to under which circumstances, a Writ Court would interfere with the orders of the Settlement Commission. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
