TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers had made a reference to the Settlement Commission in respect of six assessment years commencing from 2001-2002 to 2006-2007. The Settlement Commission had added Rs. 6.97 Crores as profit and had taken profit at the rate of 8 per cent of gross turn over and has calculated the income of the first petitioner on such basis. The reasons as to why the Settlement Commission had proceeded to add Rs. 6.97 Crores as profit and had taken the net profit rate at 8 per cent of the gross turnover has not been stated in the impugned order. The Settlement Commission has proceeded on the basis of a report which is not a report under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Rules. The petitioners had made submissions with regard to the adjustments of Rs. 6.97 Crores. Suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of reassessment is vested with the assessing authority. Relying heavily on (2013) 359 Income Tax Reports page 450 (Bombay) (Major Metals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.) learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the Settlement Commission is empowered to call for a report of the Commission at two stages. In the present case, the Settlement Commission has not done so. The Settlement Commission has acted contrary to the statute in arriving at the order of settlement. Therefore, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission stands vitiated. 4. On the aspect of introduction of the sum of Rs. 6.97 Crores as earnings of the first petitioner and the rate of net profit, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an assessee. The assessee has exercised his discretion in approaching the Settlement Commission. He cannot resile from the proceedings if he does not accept the views of the Settlement Commission. An assessee while approaching the Settlement Commission is aware of the consequences of the same, at least is deemed to be aware of the same. In the facts of the present case, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that, subsequent to the order of the Settlement Commission, an assessment was done pursuant thereto. The petitioners had applied under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on May 13, 2014 for correction of such order of assessment. The same was disposed of by an Order dated August 5, 2014. Therefore, the petitioners cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if such order is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that, such contraventions of the Act of 1961 are prejudicial to the petitioners. A writ petition is also maintainable if it can be substantiated that an order of the Settlement Commission stands vitiated by bias, fraud or malice. These grounds of challenge are noted in Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. (supra), Jyotendrasinhji (supra), Major Metals Ltd. (supra), Shriyans Prasad Jain (supra). A statutory authority is required to act in consonance with the principles of natural justice while deciding on an issue which affects the rights of any person. An order passed by a statutory authority be required to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....profit was assessed at 8% per annum. 10. The petitioners have contended that on the aforesaid two grounds, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is nonspeaking. The Settlement Commission has dealt with these two grounds in the impugned order. The petitioners may not agree with the reasons given in the impugned order of the Settlement Commission. However, the impugned order cannot be said to be without any reasons so far as the two grounds are concerned. Both the issues of the sum of Rs. 6.97 Crores as well as the rate of interest have been dealt with by the Settlement Commission. A Writ Court is not called upon to reappreciate the evidence produced before the Settlement Commission, act as the appellate authority and substitute th....