TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Commission found that there was no basis for estimation and quantification of undisclosed income by the department. Settlement Commission found that a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000.00 comprising of Rs.50,00,000.00 offered in the return filed under Section 153A, Rs.1,13,70,000.00 in the settlement application as well as a further sum of Rs.36,30,000.00 offered in the course of hearing would meet the ends of justice. The same was accepted and the issue was settled. No procedural or substantive error or infirmity in the approach of the Settlement Commission. Settlement Commission had followed the laid down procedure contemplated under Chapter XIX-A of the Act as well as under the Rules. Principles of natural justice were duly complied with. There is no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation. In the absence thereof, we are afraid we cannot reopen a concluded settlement in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India like an appellate authority. No merit in the writ petition. - WRIT PETITION No. 19182 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2023 - THE HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI FOR THE PETITIONER : J V PRASAD S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NIL Total Rs. 77,17,000 6. In response to notice issued by the Settlement Commission, petitioner submitted objection under Rule 6 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Proceedings) Rules, 1986 (briefly, the Rules hereinafter). In the said report, petitioner contended that application filed by respondent No.2 for settlement was not maintainable and should be rejected. However, Settlement Commission admitted the application of respondent No.2, whereafter petitioner had to submit a report under Rule 9 of the Rules disclosing therein as to how concealment of taxable income was detected by the revenue. It was mentioned therein that no new facts were disclosed by respondent No.2 in the application. In all, contention of the petitioner was that conditions for settlement in terms of Section 245C of the Act were absent and therefore, the application of respondent No.2 should be rejected. However, by the impugned order dated 18.03.2008, respondent No.1 i.e., Settlement Commission accepted the additional income offered by respondent No.2 at Rs.77,17,000.00. Consequently, petitioner was directed to issue demand notice to resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commission, we may briefly advert to the scheme of settlement as provided under the Act. 12.1. Chapter XIX-A of the Act comprising Sections 245A to 245M deals with settlement of cases. Section 245A(f) of the Act defines Settlement Commission to mean the Income Tax Settlement Commission constituted under Section 245B of the Act. 12.2. As per sub-section (1) of Section 245B of the Act, the Central Government shall constitute a Commission to be called the Income Tax Settlement Commission for settlement of cases under Chapter XIX-A. We may mention that as per the proviso, Income Tax Settlement Commission so constituted had ceased to operate with effect from 01.02.2021. However, we have been informed at the Bar that an Interim Settlement Board is now in operation to ensure that there is no vacuum in the interregnum. Composition of the Settlement Commission is dealt with in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 245B of the Act. 12.3. Jurisdictional powers of Settlement Commission are delineated in Section 245BA of the Act. 12.4. Section 245C of the Act provides for filing of application for settlement of cases. As per sub-section (1), an assessee may, at any stage of a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and after giving an opportunity to the applicant as well as to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of being heard either in person or through an authorised representative and after examining such further evidence as may be necessary, the Settlement Commission may pass an order on the settlement application. Sub-section (6) says that every order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest, the manner in which any sum due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective. It clarifies that if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that the settlement was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the settlement would be deemed to be void. Power of rectification of any mistake apparent from the record is available to the Settlement Commission in terms of subsection (6B). That apart, Settlement Commission has the power to reopen concluded proceedings. 12.7. Finally, as per Section 245H of the Act, Settlement Commission has the power to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty in the event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from penalty and prosecution, with or without conditions, in cases where it is satisfied that the assessee has made a full disclosure of his income and its sources. Under Section 245-HA, the Commission can send back the matter to assessing officer, where it finds that the applicant is not cooperating with it. Section 245 declares that every order of settlement passed under Sub-section (4) of Section 245(D) shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in Chapter XIX-A, be re-opened in any proceeding under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force. Section 245-L declares that any proceedings under chapter XIXA before the settlement commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Thereafter, Supreme Court held that despite the finality clause contained in Section 245-I of the Act, the same would not bar and cannot bar jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 136 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult to predicate the reasons and considerations which induce the commission to make a particular order, unless of course the commission itself chooses to give reasons for its order. Even if it gives reasons in a given case, the scope of inquiry in the appeal remains the same as indicated above viz., whether it is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle of natural justice (audi alterant portent) has been incorporated in Section 245-D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by 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, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias, fraud malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in Sri Rant Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission (MANU/SC/0429/1989 : [1989]176ITR169(SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
