TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the ground raised by the Revenue either in the report filed under Rule 9 of the said Rules or in the subsequent report filed to the reply given by the assessees. Though the word 'disclosed' gives a slightly distorted meaning, a clear picture emerges if we see paragraph 11.2 of the order passed by the ITSC, which deals with settlement of income. The total income arrived at by the ITSC which alone shall be considered as the income disclosed for the purposes of an application under Section 245C of the Act. The Revenue need not have any apprehension over the income, which was initially disclosed at the time of filing the application under Section 245C of the Act because the said income, which was offered at the first instance was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order dated 03.3.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 31351 and 31352 of 2015. 3. The said writ petitions were filed by the first respondent herein namely the Revenue. 4. The challenge in the said writ petitions was to the orders passed by the second respondent herein namely the Income Tax Settlement Commission (for short, the ITSC) dated 02.3.2015 settling the case of the assessees for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012- 13. 5. From the averments set out in the affidavits filed in support of the said writ petitions, we are able to see that the challenge by the Revenue to the orders passed by the ITSC was primarily on two grounds. 6. Firstly, with regard the issue relating to deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed view, a truncated challenge to the orders of the ITSC either at the instance of the assessees or at the instance of the Revenue cannot be maintained. As has been held in several decisions consistently, the Court, while examining the correctness of the orders passed by the ITSC, will examine the decision making process and not the decision itself. 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessees, at the time of filing applications for settlement under Section 245C of the Act, did not offer any additional income for the assessment year 2012-13. The Revenue filed a report under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules contending that the assessees might be directed to produce the books of accounts and other do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds fifty lakh rupees. 13. Admittedly, the jurisdiction to assess income of the assessee for six years would arise as a block assessment only in the event of search and therefore, the ITSC rightly took into consideration the year of search namely 2012-13. As pointed out earlier, these are all issues, which are on the merits of the matter and more particularly with regard to the maintainability of the application before the ITSC, which was considered by the ITSC at two stages and it was never the case of the Revenue that the year of search should be excluded. That apart, we find that the ITSC directed the Assessing Officer to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 234B of the Act has to be charged on the income as disclosed in the applications under Section 245C of the Act. The Revenue is, thus, of the view that the Tribunal wrongly mentioned that the interest would be chargeable on the income disclosed. 16. Though the word 'disclosed' gives a slightly distorted meaning, a clear picture emerges if we see paragraph 11.2 of the order passed by the ITSC, which deals with settlement of income. The total income arrived at by the ITSC is ₹ 28,04,72,938/-, which alone shall be considered as the income disclosed for the purposes of an application under Section 245C of the Act. The Revenue need not have any apprehension over the income, which was initially disclosed at the time of fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
