9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Shri Shekhar Aggarwal, Director of Surya Food & Agro Limited (the flagship company of the group) was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. In his said statement, Shri Aggarwal admitted that the said group of companies had earned unaccounted income which was routed as bogus share capital during the Financial Years pertaining to the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014- 15. 3.2 As assured in his said statement by Shri Aggarwal, the said entire undisclosed income of the group was surrendered in the respective assessment years by the flagship company Surya Food & Agro Ltd. through proceedings before the Settlement Commission. The additional income so disclosed before the Settlement Commission was Rs. 49,12,73,399/- with specific pleadings that the profit made outside books by the applicant was utilized for making investments in the share capital of the respondents/assessees. The Settlement Commission by way of final order settled the income at Rs. 55,77,22,000/- and that final order having been accepted by both sides, attained finality. As regards status of Shri Shekhar Aggarwal, it is not in dispute that being Director of the flagship company, Surya Food & Agro Ltd, he was han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding with regard to ground No. 1, we hold that the addition for alleged expenditure on arranging the accommodation entries in the form of share capital is also made from the undisclosed income offered and settled by M/s Surya Food & Agro Limited before the Settlement Commission". 7. Hence, the present appeals. 8. The appeals are admitted on the following question of law, which arises for consideration: "Once the flagship company of the group of companies had paid tax on its unaccounted income by way of proceedings conducted before the Settlement Commission, as accepted by the revenue, whether the same money when used in the form of share capital in the respondents/assessees companies can again be subjected to tax in the hands of the respondents/ assessees?" 9. With the consent of learned counsel for both sides, we heard these appeals finally at this stage itself. 10. Learned counsel for appellant/revenue assailed the impugned orders of the Tribunal, contending that the same are not based on correct application of law and facts. Learned counsel for appellant/revenue contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside since the same are based on wrong understandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) cited by learned counsel for appellant/revenue supports the case set up by the respondents/assessees. In the said case, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. vs CIT, 1980 SCR (3) 618, it was held that when cash credits were treated as income from undisclosed sources, the assessee can take an alternative contention before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the cash credits were out of the undisclosed income taxed in earlier years. 13. In the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs Commissioner of Income Tax, UP, AIR 1969 SC 501, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental principle of law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice; and that it is not open to the Income Tax Officer, if income has accrued to the assessee and is liable to be included in the total income of a particular year, to ignore the accrual and thereafter to tax it as an income of another year on the basis of receipt. 14. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs Sarjan Realities Ltd, 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 8298 also it was held that when the assessee had already paid tax on the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttlement Commission having accepted such settlement, with or without the opposition by the Revenue, finality of the conclusions of the Settlement Commission would attached in terms of section 245I of the Act. Thirdly, the department concedes that the order of Settlement Commission has not been challenged further. Under the circumstances, allowing the department's appeal, levying tax on the same amount from the assessee would be wholly impermissible. In fact, it also would be opposed to the observations of the Assessing Officer and those of the Tribunal that under no circumstances, the same income would be subjected to tax twice". 18. In the case of Pr. CIT (Central) vs Krishan Kumar Modi, 2022:DHC:676-DB, also a coordinate bench of this court reiterated that same money cannot be taxed twice. 19. In the cases of Omaxe Limited vs DCIT, 2014:DHC:1985-DB, a Division Bench of this Court and Komal Kant Fakir Chand Sharma vs DCIT, (2019) SCC OnLine Guj 696, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that once Settlement Commission had completed proceedings, its order is conclusive vide Section 245I and reopening any proceeding in respect of matters covered in the said order would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
