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>Court upholds Income Tax Settlement Commission's order on additional settlement amounts. Application not amended under Section 245C(1).</h1> <h3>PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1 Versus M/s SHREYANSH CORPORATION</h3> PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-1 Versus M/s SHREYANSH CORPORATION - [2020] 421 ITR 153 (Guj) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Income Tax Settlement Commission's order dated 17.7.2018.2. Alleged non-disclosure of full and true income by the respondents in their settlement applications.3. Whether the Settlement Commission's acceptance of additional amounts offered by the respondents constitutes an amendment of the original application under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act.4. Whether the Settlement Commission's order is a non-reasoned order.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Income Tax Settlement Commission's Order:The petitions challenge the order dated 17.7.2018 by the Income Tax Settlement Commission regarding assessment year 2004-2005 for both respondents. The Settlement Commission allowed the applications to proceed further under Section 245D(2D) of the Income Tax Act. The Commission settled the cases based on the additional income offered by the respondents and the explanations provided for the proposed additions.2. Alleged Non-Disclosure of Full and True Income:The petitioner argued that the respondents' offer of additional amounts to settle the issue indicates that they did not make a full and true disclosure of their income in their original applications. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT, emphasizing that a full and true disclosure is a pre-condition for a valid application under Section 245C(1).3. Amendment of the Original Application:The petitioner contended that the respondents' offer of additional amounts via their letter dated 8.6.2018 amounted to an amendment of their original applications, which is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. The court, however, found that the respondents had not revised their original applications but had offered additional amounts in the spirit of settlement to bring a quietus to the matter and buy peace of mind.4. Non-Reasoned Order:The petitioner claimed that the Settlement Commission's order was non-reasoned. The court examined the impugned order and found that the Settlement Commission had considered the proposed additions, the respondents' explanations, and the documents submitted. The court concluded that the order was reasoned and not a non-speaking order.Conclusion:The court found no infirmity in the Settlement Commission's order. It noted that the respondents had offered additional amounts to settle the matter in the spirit of settlement, which does not constitute a revision of the original application under Section 245C(1). The court also found that the Settlement Commission's order was reasoned and addressed the contentions of both parties. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
