TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er as partner or proprietor. On 6-5-1999 a search operation was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee. The assessment was completed under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, as evidenced by Ext.P1. 4. The undisclosed income has been determined for the block period at Rs. 43,92,960. It was challenged in appeal by the assessee. While the same was pending consideration, he filed a petition under section 245(1) of the Act before the Settlement Commission. Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Settlement Commission admitting the application. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the Commission which is under challenge in this original petition. 5. The Settlement Commission estimated the net profit on the total turnover fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of a Division Bench of this Court in V. Kunhambu & Sons v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 235 with regard to the legality of the assessment made on the basis of voluntary statement given by the assessee. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied upon the following decisions : N. Krishnan v. Settlement Commission [1989] 180 ITR 585/47 Taxman 294 (Kar.), Shriyans Prasad Jain v. ITO [1993] 204 ITR 616/70 Taxman 290 (SC) and CIT v. ITSC [2000] 246 ITR 63/112 Taxman 523 (Bom.), in support of his pleas. 9. A reading of Ext.P4 order passed by the Settlement Commission while admitting the application shows that the Assessing Officer had estimated the gross profit in the liquor division at 45 per cent. With regard to the voluntary statement, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) of course, the Division Bench in the said case, had upheld the assessment on the basis of the voluntary statement, treating it as valid. Herein, the question is quite different. The Settlement Commission, in exercise of its power, has adopted a method which cannot be said to be arbitrary. It cannot be said that the Settlement Commission is bound by the method adopted by the Assessing Officer itself, relying upon the voluntary statement. Significantly, materials, if any, have not been relied on by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission in support of the disclosure made in the voluntary statement. There is a finding in that regard, in Ext.P2 in para 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Settlement Commission had acted illegal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the second respondent, it is mentioned that the assessee has filed the Wealth Statement for the period 31-3-1990 to 6-5-1999; increase in wealth to each year to 6-5-1999, and the cash flow statement for each year, details of investment in business in each firm, withdrawals, additions, investment in shares and bank deposits and immovable property have been furnished for each year and the department has no objection regarding the correctness of the above statement and has not raised any item of the asset which is not included in the wealth statement or any liability which is not correct. It cannot therefore be found that the order Ext.P2 suffers from any legal infirmities warranting interference. 13. The question is whether this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t would not go into questions of fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611, this Court can interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be "contrary to any of the provisions of the Act". To the same effect is the earlier decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT&WT) [1989] 176 ITR 169 (SC)." It is therefore clear that interference can be made only if it is found that the order is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Bombay High Court in ITSC's case (supra), has also laid down the scope of interference in such matters and the scope of writ j....