TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said sum as income of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala and the department has already received the tax and interest on such income. That being the position, it would not be possible for the department to tax the same income once again in the hands of the present assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that before the Settlement Commission, the declaration of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala in this respect was opposed by the Revenue. Secondly, the Settlement Commission having accepted such settlement, with or without the opposition by the Revenue, finality of the conclusions of the Settlement Commission would attached in terms of section 245I of the Act. Thirdly, the department concedes that the order of Settlement Commission has not been challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Settlement Commission and which application was also allowed by the Settlement Commission passing final order under section 245D(4) of the the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has become final ? 2. Brief facts may be noted from Tax Appeal No.276 of 2017. This appeal is filed by the assessee which is a limited company, to challenge the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 08.03.2016 allowing the department's appeal. For the assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer had passed the order of assessment in case of the assessee on 30.12.2011. In such order, he added a sum of ₹ 74,00,000/by way of unaccounted cash receipt which was found and seized from the bank locker of the assessee company during a searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on passed its order on 14.02.2012. Before the Appellate Commissioner, the assessee submitted that said Bhikhubhai N. Padsala had disclosed such amount in his income. The department had not objected to the same and the Settlement Commission had ultimately passed the order of settlement, in which, this amount was accepted as the income of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) called for a remand report, in which, the Assessing Officer had confirmed that said Bhikhubhai N. Padsala had incorporated the said sum of ₹ 74 lakhs in the cash flow statement filed by him before the Settlement Commission. In that view of the matter, the Commission deleted the said sum of ₹ 74 lakhs from the income of the assessee. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Settlement Commission by passing order of settlement. By very statutory scheme of provisions, acceptance of such income in the hands of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala would have to be preceded by payment to tax. We have therefore proceeded on the basis that the Settlement Commission accepted the said sum as income of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala and the department has already received the tax and interest on such income. That being the position, it would not be possible for the department to tax the same income once again in the hands of the present assessee. This would be for multiple reasons. Firstly, there is nothing on record to suggest that before the Settlement Commission, the declaration of Bhikhubhai N. Padsala in this respect was opposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
