TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as section 245F is concerned, though the Settlement Commission is empowered to have all powers which are vested in an income-tax authority under the Act, in addition to the power conferred under Chapter XIX-A, but such power can be exercised for the purpose of procedure of settlement of application under section 245C and not for reassessment of tax of a particular year which is vested with the assessing authority. – Order of settlement commissioner set aside. - 970 and 971 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2009 - S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA and RAJA ELANGO JJ. V. Ramachandran for M/s. Anita Sumanth for the appellants. Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckground, during the pendency of the appeals, the appellants preferred their respective applications under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therein, the appellants had shown their revised income and taken a plea that the income so shown was a full and true disclosure of the income of assessees. Having heard the parties, the Settlement Commission, after due enquiry and obtaining the report, issued the impugned order dated May 21, 1998. By the said order, though it was accepted that the appellants made a full and true disclosure, the revised income as shown by the appellants was enhanced and thereby, it was ordered to be assessed on the basis of the enhanced income as fixed by the Settlement Commission. The common order was challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the income shown was a full and true disclosure, then there was no occasion to fix some higher income, as has been done in the impugned order. The alternative argument was that, if the Settlement Commission has not accepted the income disclosed by the appellants/assessees under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, in that case, the petition under section 245C was not maintainable and, therefore, the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to pass any order thereon. 4. Per contra, the stand taken by Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue is that in view of section 243F of the Income-tax Act, the Settlement Commission was not bound by the amount as was disclosed by the assessees and was empowered to f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income-tax authority under the Act in relation to the case. Therefore, it will be evident that apart from the power conferred under Chapter XIX-A of the Act, the Settlement Commission has the power vested with an income-tax authority under the Act. However, such power is to be used for the purpose of determining an application under section 245C and not for the purpose of reassessment of tax calculated by the Assessing Officer. 8. The provision of section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fell f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue would be outside the power of the Settlement Commission, as the application itself is not in conformity with section 245C(1) of the Act. A similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of this court in Dr. C. M. K. Reddy v. Settlement Commission [2008] 306 ITR 403. 9. It will be evident from the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission that the following disclosure of income was made by the appellants as full and true disclosure of their respective income. The income that was assessed by the Assessing Officer and the income as fixed by the Settlement Commission are also shown hereunder: M/s. Canara Jewellers (appellant in W. A. No. 970 of 2001) Assessment year Income assessed by the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lers and for both the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 with regard to the petitioner /assessee (Sri Yogesh Achar), since deceased. When once the income disclosed by the assessees under section 245C is not accepted as full and true disclosure of their respective income, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court and this court, as referred to above, we hold that the applications under section 245C preferred by the assessees were not maintainable and, therefore, the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to pass any order enhancing the income, showing higher income in respect of the assessees. 11. So far as section 245F is concerned, though the Settlement Commission is empowered to have all powers which are vested in an income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
