TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be quashed and set aside. The first point pertains to the transaction concerning the property at Motia Khan, Karol Bagh in respect of which the respondent No.1 alongwith his wife Smt. Vineeta Gupta had declared a sum of Rs.7.6 crores as undisclosed investment. Insofar as that issue concerning the property at Motia Khan is concerned, it has been dealt with by us in a recent decision in the case of the respondent No.1's wife Smt. Vineeta Gupta in WP(C) 829/2013 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vineeta Gupta) decided on 06.05.2014. That decision would cover the point taken in the present petition with regard to the transaction concerning the property at Motia Khan even insofar as the respondent No.1 herein is concerned. The other issue which has been raised by the Revenue/petitioner is with regard to five receipts of cash totalling to Rs.6.00 crores which were found during the search operation which took place on 15.01.2009 at the premises of respondent No.1. The five receipts are of Rs.2.00 crores and four others of Rs.1.00 crore each. The said receipts were photocopies. The respondent No.1 has stated that although the said receipts representing Rs.6.00 crores were receipts of loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments, are acknowledgement receipts signed by Shri Gopal Gupta having received the amount. If the reverse calculation is done, it indicates that Shri Gopal Gupta advanced cash loan of Rs. 80 crores to five persons on 7.11.2008 for a period of six months. CIT(DR) further contended that the counsel of the applicant could not produce any evidence to show that loans were received by Sri Gopal Gupta. No confirmation from the persons who are mentioned in the documents have been submitted. CIT(DR) also drew attention to the statement of the applicant which was recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and specially his answer to Q. No. 33 which is reproduced below :- "I have gone through the pages shown by you. I am unable to recollect right now the exact nature of these receipts. I will have to go through my records and consult the concerned accountants to furnish the required details asked by you. I shall submit the same as and when required in due course of time" From the above' CIT(DR) has contended that the applicant was giving evasive replies. Considering that the transaction was executed on 07.11.2008 and search took place on 15.01.2009, this was an after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of a person taking a loan i.e. identification of the borrower, his business particulars, amount of loan, period for which the loan is taken and the rate of interest and name of person from whom loan is taken is mentioned on such a receipt. vi) The Department has option to make necessary enquiries from the broker Mr. Suresh Bansal whose address has been given and approach to the Commission in case of any misrepresentation of facts to make the settlement void. 13. It is claimed by the applicant that he has offered additional income of Rs.6 crores on account of such receipts as he cannot get confirmation of such loans from Shri Ankit Agarwal and other lenders as the transactions are unaccounted from both sides. It is argued that the persons who advanced loans will not confirm the unaccounted transactions on the basis of papers seized at the premises of the applicant as such confirmation would make him liable to tax." 6. The conclusions of the Settlement Commission on the above issue are as under:- "15. It is observed that there is no dispute that the amount of Rs. six crores has been received by the applicant on 07.11.2008. The dispute between the applicant and the Depart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the amount of Rs. 6 crores as mentioned in the receipts are loans taken by Shri Sri Gopal Gupta payable @ 1.25% interest for the period of six months. As the applicant has already offered Rs.6 crores as additional income, no further action is required on this issue." 7. From the above it is evident that the Settlement Commission has taken the view that the amount of Rs.6.00 crores as mentioned in the said receipts were loans taken by respondent No.1 payable @1.25% for the period of six months. The Settlement Commission also took the view that, as the respondent No.1 has already offered Rs.6.00 crores as additional income, no further action was required on the issue. 8. We have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. It is evident that the Revenue seeks to interpret the said receipts in such a way as to indicate that the amount of Rs.6.00 crores had been received by way of interest whereas the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on the interpretation placed by the Settlement Commission that the said sum was received by way of loans. In our view, both interpretations are possible. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act. The exact words used by the Supreme Court were as under: "16. It is true that the finality clause contained in Section 245-I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case may be. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directly in this Court is any different than what it would be if the assessee had first approached the High Court under Article 226 and then come up in appeal to this Court under Article 136. A party does not and cannot gain any advantage by approaching this Court directly under Article 136, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226. This is not a limitation inherent in Article 136; it is a limitation which this Court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of the function performed by the Commission and keeping in view the principles of judicial review. Maybe, there is also some force in what Dr Gauri Shankar says viz., that the order of the Commission is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, to dissect its order and that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders of the Settlement Commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that the order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has prejudiced the appellant. The main controversy in these appeals relates to the interpretation of the settlement deeds - though it is true, some contentions of law are also raised. The Commission has interpreted the trust deeds in a particular manner. Even if the interpretation placed by the Commission on the said deeds is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference in these appeals, since a wrong interpretation of a deed of trust cannot be a violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is equally clear that the interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the Commission does not bind the authorities under the Act in proceedings relating to other assessment years. 17. In view of the above, though it is not necessary, strictly speaking, to go into the correctness of the interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the Commission, and it is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er annum was passed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 but the High Court wrongly interpreted the said Rule and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding. So far as the second issue with respect to interest on Rs. 50 lakhs is concerned, the same being a factual issue should not have been gone into by the High Court exercising the writ jurisdiction and the High Court should not have substituted its own opinion against the opinion of the Settlement Commission when the same was not challenged on merits." (underlining added) 15. From the above it is evident that the Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought not to gone into a factual issue while exercising writ jurisdiction and should not have substituted its opinion against the opinion of the Settlement Commission. From all these decisions it is abundantly clear that the scope of review under Article 226 of the Constitution insofar as an order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245 D (4) of the Income Tax Act is concerned, is a very limited one. This Court certainly cannot substitute its view in place of the Settlement Commission particularly on point of interpretation of a particular document. Interfer....