TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Special Court Economic Offence, Jaipur be stayed/suspended during the pendency of the present petition. Mr. Jhanwar, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 28.06.2013 after having held that the petitioners had not made a true and full disclosure of their income and had not come before the Settlement Commission with clean hands, nor cooperated in the proceedings before it. It was submitted that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission are distinct from that before the Assessing Authorities through various tiers and the Madras High Court in the case of Canara Jewellers and Yogesh Palke alias Yogesh Achar (deed by LRs.) Vs. Settlement Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anr. ETC. ETC. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 326 ITR 642], the Income Tax Department itself, after the amendment of 2007, relied upon the very same judgment of Ajmera Housing Corporation (Supra) before the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. [MANU/DE/1816/2013]. The law enunciated therein therefore still holds good as per the department. It was submitted that the legal position both before and subsequent to amendment of Section 245D of the Act of 1961 thus remains that the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction in respect of an application made before it under Section 245C(1) of the Act of 1961 only in the event of a true and full disclosure of the suppressed incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll their properties have been attached by the Income Tax Department and even though the petitioners are willing for the sale of the said properties and making full compliance with the Apex Court's interim order dated 17.10.2014 with the consideration from the sale/s being appropriated by the Income Tax Department upto Rs. 3 crores, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioners none of the properties attached are finding a buyer and the petitioners continue to remain in default upto that extent. Mr. Jhanwar then submitted that aside of liability on account of alleged tax "assessed" by the Settlement Commission, the petitioners in terms of liberty granted by the Settlement Commission as also under Section 276C(1) of the Act of 1961 ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsuant to the impugned order and prosecute the appellant, then pending appeal, consequence of the order under challenge is implemented by prosecuting appellant thereby respondents are treating impugned order to be final though admitted for consideration by this Court" Mr. Jhanwar submitted that the foundation of the prosecution against the petitioners is the order of Settlement Commission passed on 28.06.2013 which is under challenge before this Court for being without jurisdiction. One way or the other, there is no finality to the said order inasmuch the order of the Settlement Commission can potentially be set aside by this Court and otherwise if the petitioners are relegated under Section 245H(1) of the Act of 1961 to regular proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission for the reason that vide order dated 17.10.2014 on proceedings commencing with an interim order in the present writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has required the petitioners to deposit only Rs. 3 crores of Rs. 30 crores of the due tax "assessed" by the Settlement Commission. It also prima facie appears that in view of the state of law prior to the amendment of the Act of 1961, effective 1st June, 2007 as reflected in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation (Supra), the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to make a regular assessment qua an applicant who approached it for a settlement under Section 245C(1) of t....