TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e proceedings abide till the petition filed by the assessee is disposed of, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax did not accede to the same, as the assessment would become time barred by December 31, 1996. So he computed the income on the basis of the materials available on record and he passed the order determining the undisclosed income at Rs.66,58,300 in his proceedings dated December 23, 1996. Thereafter, the said Abraham, his wife, his three sons who are associated with Mr. Abraham as partners in the firms of Shoranur Road Transport, Mayilvahanan Roadlines and Mayilvahanan Industries have also joined with the above said persons to file applications before the Settlement Commission. Since the issues involved are connected, the Settlement Commission considered the applications jointly and passed orders on December 21, 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner and his wife, Annama Abraham, and his three sons filed miscellaneous applications to direct that the undisclosed income be recomputed on the basis of the findings under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act. In the proceedings dated May 14, 1999, the Settlement Commission rejected the applications filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by learned counsel for the petitioners. Relying on the judgments reported in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (I.T. and W.T.) [1989] 176 ITR 169 (SC) and in Jyotendra sinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC), he has submitted that the judicial review with respect to the orders of Settlement Commission is very restricted. Learned counsel also has submitted that a review application can not be maintained and so the rejection of the miscellaneous applications was only in accordance with law. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners took me through various provisions of the Income-tax Act, in support of his submission that the Assistant Commissioner has taken into consideration all the income which cannot be construed as undisclosed income as defined under section 158B(b) of the Income-tax Act, the Settlement Commission failed to appreciate the same by rejecting the miscellaneous petitions, I am not inclined to deal with the same elaborately in view of the scope of dispute in this case. The only dispute in this case is, according to the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner while making assessment of undisclosed inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive of the fact whether regular assessment for any one or more of the relevant assessment years is pending or not. Section 158BB of the Income-tax Act deals with the computation of undisclosed income of the block period. According to the said provision the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed. Section 158BC contemplates procedure for block assessment. From the above provisions, it is very clear that the first respondent is empowered to assess the petitioners' undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act. There cannot be any doubt that the procedure contemplated under Chapter XIV-B of the Act is different and independent from the regular assessment under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, to decide the present issue raised before me. I have to find out whether the petitioners are correct in saying that even the income other than undisclosed income has been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income tax Act. The first respondent passed an order under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act on December 23, 1996. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the apex court while dealing with the power of judicial review of the order of the Settlement Commission has held as follows: "The scope of enquiry, whether by the High Court under article 226 or by this court under article 136 is also the same--whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of the court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (I.T. and W.T.) [1989] 176 ITR 169, which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the Bench com prising himself and S.R. Pandian J., observed that, in such a case, this court is 'concerned with the legality of the procedure followed and not with the validity of the order'. The learned judge added 'judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process.' Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
