2015 (12) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a dealer in real estate. He is dealing in sale and purchase of immovable property/land at Amritsar. A search was conducted on 21.8.2009 at the business and residential premises of the petitioner under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). During the search, records including account books, computer and stock in trade of the petitioner were seized by the officers. The petitioner made a declaration to surrender income amounting to Rs. 2.65 crores for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 under Section 132(4) of the Act subject to no penalty and prosecution. The Deputy Commissioner of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 70,12,607/-. At the time of search, jewellery weighing 514.860 gms of the petitioner was also taken into possession worth more than Rs. 13 lacs. The petitioner vide letter dated 9.2.2015 also made a prayer for selling the said jewellery and realize the part of tax amount due. Respondent No.2 issued notice for sale in the newspaper to realise the tax amount. The petitioner is working as a director in the company. The company had already agreed to take loan for the discharge of tax liability of the petitioner. The petitioner being in financial crunch was unable to pay the due amount by the stipulated date. Therefore he filed representation before respondent No.2 dated 24.3.2015 for extending the period by 14 months to clear the entire amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....12.2014 asking the petitioner to pay the amount of tax together with interest in four monthly equal instalments with the last instalment payable by 31.3.2015. It was also directed that in case of failure to make the payment within the prescribed period, the immunity granted under the provisions of Section 245H(1) of the Act shall be withdrawn. The petitioner had made a request vide letters dated 28.3.2015 and 31.3.2015 before the Settlement Commission for further extension of time of 14 months for payment of tax. However, by that time, he had already defaulted the three instalments. Vide order dated 23.4.2015, the Settlement Commission disposed of the said applications directing the petitioner to pay the amount on or before 10.5.2015 and t....