TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent No.1 had approached the Settlement Commission by way of a settlement application in respect of Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2009-10. 2. The only point raised by Mr Sahni appearing on behalf of the Revenue/petitioner was that the respondent No.1 had not made a full and true disclosure and, therefore, the order dated 21.05.2012 was liable to be quashed and or set aside. It was contended by Mr Sahni that there was one transaction concerning the property at Motia Khan, Karol Bagh, in respect of which the respondent No.1 had declared only a sum of Rs 7.6 crores (along with her husband Sh. Gopal Gupta) as the undisclosed investment whereas the persons who were the sellers in the said transaction had d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e acquired by Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd., the share of the premium would be Rs 13.3 crores which was supposed to be paid by Sh. Gopal Gupta and his wife (the respondent No.1 herein) to the other Group from whom the said shares were acquired. It is further the case of the Revenue that in their statement of facts before the Settlement Commission, Smt. Lata Jain had declared a sum of Rs 8 crores in the Assessment Year 2008-09 as income derived from the sale of 1/3rd shares to Gopal Infrastructures (P) Ltd. A similar declaration was made by Sh. Roshan Agarwal to the extent of Rs 8 crores in respect of the very same Assessment Year 2008-09. Thus, according to Mr Sahni, the sellers (Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal) had declared that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the said share was acquired through the purchase of shares as indicated above. He further submitted that it is also not disputed by the Revenue and, in fact, it is the Revenue's case that the value of the property at Motia Khan was Rs 130 crores. A further sum of Rs 3 crores could, admittedly, be added by way of registration charges taking the value of the property, at the time of the transaction, to be Rs 133 crores. 8. Mr Parag Tripathi further submitted that 1/3rd of this value of Rs 133 crores would amount to Rs 44.34 crores. Thus, according to Mr Tripathi, this is the value of the 1/3rd share in the said property which the respondent No.1 along with her husband had acquired. He submitted that it is an admitted position that out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty would be Rs 52.73 crores (Rs 44.34 crores + Rs 8.39 crores). Furthermore, since this represented only 1/3rd of the value of the Motia Khan property the full value of the property would be Rs 158.19 crores (Rs 52.73 crores X 3 = 158.19 crores). He submitted that it is nobody's case that the value of the Motia Khan property was Rs 158.19 crores. On the contrary, it is the Revenue's case that the value of the property was Rs 130 crores. Therefore, there is no question of there being an untrue or partial disclosure on the part of the respondent No.1. 11. We may also point out that Mr Sahni referred to the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 31.12.2010 in the case of Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal and others. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en going by the calculation of premium, the amount comes to Rs.13.3 crores (1/3rd of Rs.40 crores). The applicants have declared more. So the amount of disclosure need not be disturbed." 12. After having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the relevant papers on record as also a copy of the Settlement Commissioner's order dated 31.12.2010, which had been handed over to us be Mr Sahni across the bar, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 21.05.2012 does not call for any interference. The fact that Smt. Lata Jain and Sh. Roshan Agarwal had together declared a sum of Rs 16 crores as undisclosed income in respect of the said transaction cannot, in our view, bind the respondent No.1 and he....