TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id to arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, when the events leading to the filing of the proceedings before the Chennai Bench of the Settlement Commission and the parties to such proceedings are outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence it would not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition by this Court. Taking note of the principles enunciated in the above decisions and taking note of the fact that the petitioner herein and the assessing authorities are at Bangalore, as already observed above, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, however, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the High Court of Karnata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity had initiated assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed returns for the block period 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1998 and 01.04.1998 to 25.01.1999, on 02.08.1999. The petitioner also filed an application for settlement before the Settlement Commission on 16.06.2001, for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. In respect of assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner disclosed an income of ₹ 12,11,980/- and in respect of assessment year, the petitioner disclosed an income of ₹ 1,33,08,280/- before the Settlement Commission. A revised statement of facts was filed before the Settlement Commission on 15.03.2002. Pursuant to the revised offer, the petitioner declared an income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined represented income from business, but it has erroneously held that the determination of such income did not affect the export profits and hence the relief under Section 80HHC is not required to be computed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, finally stating that the impugned order has resulted in additional tax liability in excess of the tax lawfully due under the provisions of the Act, prayed for allowing the prayer as sought for in this writ petition. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, in which it is stated that the Settlement Commission has passed the impugned order only after considering the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the petitioner's case, for which detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e offered by the petitioner in the block assessment admittedly represented profits derived from sale of imported goods in the local market and admittedly such sale took place purely on cash and carry basis without the imported goods reaching the petitioner's factory / godown and no records were maintained by the petitioner in respect of such sales. The Settlement Commission has also held that the proceedings by the DRI officials in this case began as early as in May 1996 and the income tax search was only in January 1999 and that if the factual position had emerged clearly in the course of the investigations by the DRI, it would have been natural for the petitioner herein to own up the same before the income tax authorities at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission had not decided the matter on merits, one more opportunity may be given to the petitioner therein to go before the Settlement Commission, this Court has analysed the issue and held that even though there was no specific reason given by the Settlement Commission to show that there was no true and full disclosure of the petitioner's duty liability therein, it was true that the authorised representative engaged by the petitioner therein, did not extend full cooperation and further there has been change of the authorised representative and therefore, that there was every justification on the part of the Settlement Commission for having refused to entertain the application. 11.In the case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material essential or integral part of the cause of action. Therefore, even if a small part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of a court, the writ petition before the said court would be maintainable. In the context of the present case, we need not dilate further on the said issue for what is impugned and challenged before us is the order of the Settlement Commission under Section 245D (1), which is an order passed without having the views of the Revenue. Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission located and functions from Delhi. The order was passed in Delhi. In the context of the present writ petition, we would record that notice in this writ petition was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 19th May 2017. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
