TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds Settlement Commission's provisional orders in Income Tax dispute, stresses disclosure</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Versus Settlement Commission</h3> The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Income Tax Department's challenge to Settlement Commission orders, emphasizing the provisional nature of the ... Validity of application for settlement to Settlement Commission - Held that:- We record the contention of the Counsel for the assessee that despite the orders being passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 245D and Section 245D(2C) of the Act, the question of fulfillment of all material requirements of a valid application for settlement would be still open for the Commission to examine before further inquiry under sub-section (3) of Section 245D and passing final order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D. Thus, quite apart from the statutory interpretation adopted by this Court in case of Vishnubhai Mafatlal Patel (2012 (12) TMI 1020 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (2013 (7) TMI 95 - DELHI HIGH COURT), even the stand of the assessee and that of the Settlement Commission being that the findings of the Settlement Commission on the fulfillment of the requirements of a valid offer are merely tentative and it will be open for the Settlement Commission to examine these aspects before passing final order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to scrutinize the decisions of the Settlement Commission. Issues:1. Challenge to orders passed by the Settlement Commission dated 28.01.2015 and 23.03.2015 by the Income Tax Department.2. Allegations of material irregularities in the orders by the Department.3. Contention by the respondent-assessee regarding the tentative nature of the stages and the non-binding nature of the Commission's observations.4. Analysis of the Settlement Commission's orders under Section 245D(1) and Section 245D(2C) of the Act.5. Interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding the disclosure requirements for settlement applications.6. Examination of the stages under Section 245D and the finality of orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act.Analysis:The High Court of Gujarat heard a petition filed by the Income Tax Department challenging two orders issued by the Settlement Commission on 28.01.2015 and 23.03.2015. The Department alleged material irregularities in the orders and claimed that the application for settlement was irregular and lacked true disclosure of income. The Department argued that the Settlement Commission erroneously allowed the application to proceed further beyond the initial stage under Section 245D(1) of the Act. The respondent-assessee contended that the observations made by the Commission were not binding and referred to relevant judgments emphasizing the tentative nature of the proceedings.Regarding the order under Section 245D(1) of the Act, the Court noted that the disclosure of income is crucial at this stage, and the Commission is empowered to examine the fulfillment of statutory requirements. The Court cited a judgment highlighting the importance of full and true disclosure for a valid settlement application. The Court emphasized that at this stage, there is no requirement to involve the Commissioner, and the application is deemed allowed to proceed if no order is passed within the specified period.Concerning the later order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act, the Court referenced a Delhi High Court judgment indicating that such orders are not final and subject to the ultimate decision under Section 245D(4). The Court reiterated that the Settlement Commission has the authority to assess the validity of the application at subsequent stages before passing a final order. The Commission's findings on the fulfillment of requirements were considered tentative and subject to further examination before the final order under Section 245D(4) is issued.In conclusion, the Court observed that the Settlement Commission's decisions on the application's validity are provisional, and the Commission retains the discretion to review these aspects before issuing a final order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The Court declined to scrutinize the Commission's decisions, affirming the tentative nature of the findings. The petition was disposed of with these observations, emphasizing the ongoing nature of the assessment process until the final order is passed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
