9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15. 3. The impugned order settled the petitioner's application to the extent it related to the Assessment Year 2014-15 by determining the settlement at Rs. 6.27 crores from Rs. 4.99 cores, as declared by the petitioner. Thus, resulting in enhancement of taxable income to Rs. 1.28 crores. However, the impugned order rejects the petitioner's application for settlement to the extent it related to Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2013-14 on the ground that the petitioner had not declared additional income for those assessment years in its settlement application. 4. The impugned order of the Commission does not dispute the fact that an application for settlement could comprise numerous assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have refused to settle the dispute for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 in the face of the decision of the Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was binding upon the three member bench of the Commission which passed the impugned order. 5. Moreover, it an admitted position before us that consequent to the passing of the impugned order, the Chairperson of the Commission on 18th November, 2016 in the case of Neptune Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. had referred the following question for the consideration by seven member Special Bench of the Commission : "Whether in an application for settlement u/s 245C(1) covering more than one assessment year, the applicant must mandatorily disclose additional income not disclosed before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application are to be settled or none at all. It cannot be split so as to settle the dispute for some of the Assessment Years and reject the others. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Commission to the extent it has rejected / not entertained, the petitioner's application for settlement for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 for not disclosing additional income in its application, prima facie appears to be incorrect. In the above view, the Assessing Officer is restrained from issuing notices and initiating proceedings under the normal provisions of the Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2013-14. 8. However, the above interim relief is granted as Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned to us that along with surcharge the tax payable would be Rs. 42 lakhs (approximately). We direct the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 42 lakhs to the Revenue on or before 31st March, 2017. This payment would be without prejudice to its rights and contentions in this petition. On the petitioner depositing the amount of Rs. 42 lakhs, there shall be a stay of the impugned order dated 29th July, 2016. In case, the amount of Rs. 42 lakhs is not deposited on or before 31st March, 2017 with the Revenue, the protection available under this order would come to an end and the Revenue would be free to adopt such proceedings as are available in law in respect of all the Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15. 10. The admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
