9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was carried out at the premises of the assessee - respondent No. 1 on 17.08.2016. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized pertaining to the unaccounted income of the assessee - respondent No. 1 and assessment proceeding under Section 153A of the Act was initiated. 4.2 During pendency of the assessment proceedings, respondent No. 1 filed application under Section 245C (1) before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (for short "Settlement Commission") offering additional income of Rs. 17 Crores for the assessment years from 2011-12 to 2017-18. 4.3 The Settlement Commission admitted the application filed by respondent No. 1. The application filed by respondent No. 1 - assessee was admitted under Section 245D (1) vide order dated 02.01.2019 and vide order dated 20.02.2019 passed under Section 245D (2C) of the Act, the application of the assessee was treated as "not invalid". 4.4 The petitioner thereafter filed Rule 9 report before the Settlement Commission. The petitioner - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat filed Rule 9 report before the Settlement Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary action/revision of the order if at any stage department comes across any evidence to establish the manner of deriving the undisclosed income being different than what has been stated by the assessee in the application. It was, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is not a conclusive order and in absence of the condition of disclosing the manner of earning of additional income disclosed by the respondent - assessee, the Settlement Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5.1 It was further submitted that though the Settlement Commission has recorded the finding in para 12.1 of the impugned order to the effect that the respondent - assessee has disclosed the income on the basis of the transactions carried out by Shri Kishor P. Koshiya, the assessee has failed to disclose manner of earning such income. Reference was made to the reply filed by the assessee to Rule 9 report wherein it is stated that no record of real estate transaction was maintained by the assessee and therefore, whatever information was available based on the recollection of facts and keeping in mind the other circumstantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd has accepted the application of Mr. Kishor Koshiya in view of the order passed by this Court in the Special Civil Application filed by the assessee on 21.03.2024 accepting the application for settlement. It was, therefore, submitted that no addition can be made even on the hands of the petitioner as no addition is made on the hands of Shri Kishor P. Koshiya. 6.2 With regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner that the assessee has failed to explain the manner in which undisclosed income was earned by the assessee, it was submitted that once there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of undisclosed income offered by the assessee, by the petitioner, the manner in which it is earned is already explained by the assessee to the effect that the assessee has provided funds to Mr. Kishor P. Koshiya who was undertaken the transaction and therefore, it would not be possible for the assessee to substantiate the claim of earning income as disclosure of the assessee is based on the amount of undisclosed income found during the course of search from the seized material only. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessee could not have offered more or less than what was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In view of such finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Commission and in absence of any further evidence produced by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission and more particularly when the statement made in the application for settlement to the effect that it is based on full and true disclosure, which is to be accepted unless there is evidence found contrary to the disclosure made, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission is just and proper and requires no interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. So far as contention raised on behalf of petitioner with regard to documents found in the mobile phone of Mr. Kishor Koshiya pertaining to the assessee is concerned, in view of the order passed by the Settlement Commission in case of Mr. Kishor Koshiya accepting the disclosure made by him as per the application for settlement, no further addition could have been made by the Settlement Commission in the hands of the assessee on such grounds as no further evidence was produced by the department during the joint verification of such documents found from the mobile phone of Shri Kishor Koshiya. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill also cooperate and shall provide information, once the response from Mr,. Kishor Koshiya on the above documents is made available to the applicant." 10. In view of above findings arrived at by the Settlement Commission, it is for Mr. Kishor Koshiya to explain the documents found his mobile phone and the assessee could not be subjected to any further disclosure on the basis of such assumption and presumption in absence of any evidence. It is true that this Court is not required to go into the merits of the matter on issues which are decided by the Settlement Commission while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In case of Jyotendrasinhji (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under : "It is true that the finality clause contained in Section 245-I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case may be. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directly in this court is any different than what it would be if the assessee had first approached the High Court under Article 226 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case this Court is " concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order.' The learned Judge added 'judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process." Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W. Police v. Evans, [1982] 1 W.L.R.1155. Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders' of the Settlement Commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has prejudiced the appellant The main controversy in these appeals relates to the interpretation of the settlement deeds though it is true, some contentions of law are also raised. The commission has interpreted the trust deeds in a particular manner, Even if the interpretation placed by the commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
