2015 (2) TMI 814 - HC - Income Tax

Settlement Commission's Income-tax Act orders upheld in court; limited judicial interference, no natural justice violation.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada and another Versus The Settlement Commissioner (IT & WT), Additional Bench, Anna Salai, Chennai and another

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's orders under the Income-tax Act. It upheld the Commission's discretionary ... Order of the Settlement Commission challenged - first respondent admitted the application filed by the second respondent for the purpose of considering the same under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - whether order suffers from grave irregularities ? - Held that:- A close perusal of the order passed by the Settlement Commission, both at the stage of admission and also at the stage of passing of the final order, we find, as a matter of fact, ample opportunity was given to the Department to file their objections and also the representatives of the Department were heard before passing the orders and in that view of the matter, we are unable to concur with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Inasmuch as we are satisfied that it was within the discretion of the Settlement Commission at the stage of section 245D(1) of the Act to admit a case for consideration based on the prima facie view, the aspect of admission of a case by the Settlement Commission except in exceptional circumstances cannot be the subject matter of a judicial review. Thus no reasons to order the amendment petition or to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the first respondent-Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act admitting the case which in fact fructified into a final order, given effect to and implemented as long as on December 29, 2000.- Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Non-advertence to the report and written submissions of the Revenue.2. Voluntariness of the statements given by the assessee.3. Detection of concealment by the Department and the necessity of complex investigation.4. The ability of the assessee to raise objections during assessments.5. Non-disclosure of income by the assessee and potential jeopardy to Revenue interests.6. Final orders passed by the Settlement Commission before the filing of the writ petition.7. Violation of the principles of natural justice.8. Discretion of the Settlement Commission to admit cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Non-advertence to the Report and Written Submissions of the Revenue:The petitioners challenged the Settlement Commission's order on the grounds that the report and written submissions filed by the Revenue were not considered. The court noted that the Settlement Commission had given ample opportunity to the Department to file objections and heard their representatives before passing the orders. Therefore, the court found no merit in this contention.2. Voluntariness of the Statements Given by the Assessee:The Revenue argued that the statements given by the assessee during the search were voluntary. The court did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing instead on the procedural aspects and the discretion of the Settlement Commission.3. Detection of Concealment by the Department and Necessity of Complex Investigation:The Revenue contended that the concealment had already been detected and no complex investigation was required to determine the undisclosed income. The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission's role is to determine whether a prima facie case is made out for consideration, rather than conducting a detailed investigation at the admission stage.4. Ability of the Assessee to Raise Objections During Assessments:The petitioners argued that the assessee could raise all objections during assessments before the Assessing Officer. The court noted that the Settlement Commission's discretion to admit cases is based on a prima facie view and is not subject to detailed objections at the admission stage.5. Non-disclosure of Income by the Assessee and Potential Jeopardy to Revenue Interests:The Revenue claimed that the assessee did not fully and truly disclose the income, which could jeopardize Revenue interests. The court reiterated that the Settlement Commission has the discretion to admit cases based on prima facie evidence and that detailed objections are considered at later stages.6. Final Orders Passed by the Settlement Commission Before Filing of the Writ Petition:The second respondent argued that the writ petition had become infructuous as the final orders were passed before the filing of the writ petition. The court acknowledged the timing but focused on the procedural propriety of the Settlement Commission's actions.7. Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioners sought to amend their writ petition to include a challenge to the final orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice. The court found that ample opportunity was given to the Department to present their case, and there was no factual foundation in the main affidavit to support the claim of violation of natural justice.8. Discretion of the Settlement Commission to Admit Cases:The court emphasized the discretion granted to the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act to admit cases for consideration based on a prima facie view. The court noted that the scope of judicial review of the Settlement Commission's orders is highly restricted and limited.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the discretionary orders passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court found no violation of natural justice and emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference with the Settlement Commission's decisions. The amendment petition was also dismissed, and the court concluded that the final orders of the Settlement Commission, which had been implemented, should not be disturbed.