TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Settlement Commission. The materials on the basis of which the Settlement Commission had arrived at its decision to add ₹ 6.97 Crores and take 8% as the rate of net profit for the purpose of calculation of tax were before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission has taken a view thereon, giving its reason therefor. The impugned order of the Settlement Commission does not call for any interference. The issue raised is answered accordingly. - W. P. No. 431 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 17-8-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. For the Petitioners : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Baid, Advocate Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents : Md. Nizamuddin, Advocate JUDGMENT Debangsu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been considered. The addition of the sum of ₹ 6.97 Crores and introduction of a rate of 8% as net profit are arbitrary. 3. Relying upon (2009) 315 Income Tax Reports 328 (Madras) (Canara Jewellers v. Settlement Commission Anr.) he has submitted that, the Settlement Commission has acted without jurisdiction, since the income disclosed by the assessees under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been accepted to be full and true disclosure of their respective income. He has relied upon (2016) 380 Income Tax Reports 342 (Delhi) (Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. Income-Tax Settlement Commission Ors.) and has submitted that, the powers and functions of the Settlement Commissioner must be in the context of and have a n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommission under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The petitioner has to demonstrate that, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is contrary to the statue or that the impugned order stands vitiated by bias, fraud or malice. In the present case, none of the grounds available to assail of the order of the Settlement Commission is available to the petitioners. In support of the contention with regard to the scope and ambit of a writ petition directed against an order of the Settlement Commission, learned Advocate for the respondents has relied upon Major Metals Ltd. (supra), 204 Income Tax Reports 616 (SC) (Shriyans Prasad Jain v. Income-tax Officer), 1993 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases (Supl.) 389 (Jyotendrasinhji v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The rate of net profit is also part and parcel of the application. The Settlement Commission has considered these aspects and has taken a view on the subject. The petitioners are not entitled to challenge the view taken by the Settlement Commission. The petitioners have not been able to establish that, the Settlement Commission has acted in contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Two grounds of challenge made in the writ petition with regard to the order of the Settlement commission were placed before the Settlement Commission by the petitioners themselves. 6. In reply, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has distinguished the cases cited on behalf of the department. He has drawn the attention to the Court to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of ₹ 6.97 Crores. With respect, such a ground is not available in the facts of the present case, as the petitioners itself had disclosed the ₹ 6.97 Crores in the Statement of Fact filed by it while approaching the Settlement Commission. Such fact was available on record before the Settlement Commission for consideration. Moreover, the Settlement Commission had considered a report dated December 27/30, 2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioners were allowed to make submission thereto. The petitioners have done so. The petitioners were heard by the Settlement Commission in such document. The petitioners are well-aware of the contents of the report. The foundational basis for the ₹ 6.97 Crores was available o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the authorities cited above. In the present case, the Settlement Commission was called upon to arrive at the quantum of tax liability of the petitioners in the settlement proceeding. It has taken a particular view. The Writ Court need not enter into the factual aspect of the matter to reapprise itself and act as an appellate authority against an order passed by the Settlement Commission. The materials on the basis of which the Settlement Commission had arrived at its decision to add ₹ 6.97 Crores and take 8% as the rate of net profit for the purpose of calculation of tax were before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission has taken a view thereon, giving its reason therefor. The impugned order of the Settlement Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
