2016 (5) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt : Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocates ORDER 1. The challenge in this petition by the Income Tax Department ('Department ') is to an order dated 7th February, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission ('ITSC') whereby the Respondent, BDR Builders & Developers Ltd., was granted immunity from prosecution and penalty. 2. The principal facts in the present pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng of the matter before the ITSC, a report dated 8th January, 2013 was submitted to it by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II (CIT, Central-II) in which a thorough analysis was done of the disclosure made by the Respondents. It urged that the Respondent Assessee "has not made a true and full disclosure" and, therefore, is "not entitled to any immunity". Thereafter the impugned order was pas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en the SC can proceed and pass an order granting immunity to the applicant from prosecution. 7. When the impugned order of the ITSC is examined, it is seen that the reason for granting the Respondent immunity from prosecution and penalty has to be found in para 12, which reads as under: "12. The applicants have prayed for immunity from prosecution and imposition of penalties under vari....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve mandatory conditions under Section 254H (1) of the Act. While, the ITSC had noted the cooperation extended by the Respondent to it in the hearing, it has failed to record satisfaction that the Respondent has made a full and true disclosure of his income and the manner in which the said income has been derived. Further, the report submitted by the Department has not been discussed. 9. Mr Sali....