TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner had not deposited the tax on disclosed income. While issuing notice, we had suo motu raised a third ground which required examination. This was of the true and full disclosures by the petitioner while filing the application for settlement. We had noticed that the application for settlement was filed on 19th June 2001 admitting undisclosed income of Rs. 75.78 lakhs [rounded off]. Such disclosure was revised on 21st September 2005 by making further disclosure of Rs. 97 lakhs. The question that occurred to us was whether in such a situation, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. vs. CIT, reported in [2010] 326 ITR 642 would apply. We would address these three issues, after recording....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gain to the petitioner. With effect from 1st June 2007, the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961 for settlement of cases were materially amended. One of the provisions inserted was Section 245HA which envisages abatement of proceedings; if not finally disposed of within the stipulated time. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 5974 of 2008 challenging validity of the said Section 245HA of the Act. In the meantime, such an issue had reached the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 113/2008] in which also, vires of the very same section was challenged. Division Bench of this Court, therefore, disposed of the petition of this petitioner by providing as under :- "We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of June 2007, such application shall not be allowed to be proceeded with unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon has been paid on or before the 31st day of July 2007. In the cases before us, additional tax on the income disclosed in the settlement application and interest thereon has not been fully paid by the applicant before 31.07.2007." Taking up the objection as to the maintainability of the settlement application, we find that under the identical situation in the case of M. Kantilal & Exports v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, this Court by its judgment dated 13th March 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 20443 of 2017 and connected petitions, held and observed as under : "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment in case of Union of India v. Star Television News Ltd. reported in [2015] 373 ITR 578 (SC) approved the judgment of the Bombay High Court. 3. With this background, when the proceedings were taken up by Settlement Commission for hearing, both sides made their arguments on the question of abatement. The Settlement Commission by the impugned order declared that all the proceedings had abated on the ground that the petitioners had earlier approached the High Court and agreed to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) and no relief was granted by the Supreme Court in such case. This was the only ground on which the applications have been closed. 5. In the present group of petitions, we are of the op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply such law. If the proceedings were delayed due to the reasons attributable to the applicants, the provision for abatement would apply but not otherwise. The Settlement Commission has not recorded any such finding. The department has not brought any facts to our notice to permit any further inquiry in this respect by the Settlement Commission. In plain terms therefore there is no material before us to hold that the application for settlement of the present petitioners were belated due to the reasons attributable to the petitioners. 6. In the result, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is set aside. The proceedings are revived and placed back before the Settlement Commission for disposal in accordance with law." Under the ....