AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected that upon the Respondent No.2- Global Energy Private Ltd. („GEPL‟) making payment of the tax, as offered by it, in 3 equal instalments, it would be granted immunity in terms of Section 245-H(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) apart from immunity from prosecution and imposition of penalties. 2. The background facts are that GEPL is engaged in the business of generation of electricity, providing power advisory services, etc. Proceedings under Section 133A were conducted at the Goa and New Delhi offices of GEPL on 23rd and 24th January 2012. An application was filed by GEPL on 19th September, 2013 under Section 34AB of the Act with ITSC, Additional Bench-II, Mumbai for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for further investigation under Section 245D (3) of the Act qua the contracts of GEPL the aforementioned persons to whom payments had been made. 5. In para 8 of the said order dated 27th August, 2014, ITSC noted that the above issues require to be investigated. It was further observed that "In this regard/ the commission has noted the lack of cooperation from the applicant/ in failing to file a reply to the Rule 9 report/ even more than six months after receiving the copy thereof". The ITSC further directed that the CIT should undertake further investigation into the above issues in respect of GEPL for all the AYs and submit a report within 90 days. 6. Following this, on 3rd December 2014, the CIT (Central) - I forwarded to the ITSC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re amount of Rs. 11,03,00,000 has been paid in AY 11- 12. It has been argued by the A.R. that none of the parties who attended before the AO or who filed written submissions before the Assessing Officer have denied receipt of the said facilitation charges. It has also been pointed out as mentioned above in its submissions by the applicant that no adverse material/ inference {in any) has been confronted by the Department to the applicant. On the other hand, the departmental representative Sh. Haque was asked whether there is any evidence to indicate the payments made by the applicant are not genuine. The CIT {DR) merely relied on the report under rule 9. No evidence has been place before us with reference to the allegation at para 24(iv) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for capitalization was also not acceded to. The working of the settled income was as per Annexure-A to the order. It was then directed that the amount of tax would be paid in 3 equal instalments by 25th March, 2015, 25th April, 2015 and 25th May, 2015 and that failure to pay tax with the prescribed period would result in the immunity granted under Section 245H(1) standing withdrawn. Then in paras 15 to 17 of the impugned order it was observed as under: "15. The applicant has prayed for immunity from prosecution and imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Income Tax Act. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the cooperation extended to the Commission during hearing, immunity is granted from prosecut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et the defects rectified and the writ petition listed after registration. That happened for the first time on 23rd September, 2015 i.e. after the writ petition was re-filed on 19th September, 2016, after removal of defects. He accordingly raised the plea of laches. 12. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel had no valid explanation to offer for the failure by the Petitioner to cure the defects and to file the petition in good time. He submitted that since there was no period of limitation as such, the counsel who at that moment was handling the cases on behalf of the Petitioner failed to take steps in good time to have the defects cured. 13. In any event, the Court does not find the explanation to be very convincing. In a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds that these are only broad general sweeping statements about the failure by ITSC to evaluate the facts „correctly‟. There is no ground as to any specific document or statement that was failed to be examined by the ITSC. 16. It was then contended by Mr Bhatia that there was no justification for ITSC to have granted a complete immunity from prosecution and this part of the impugned order is without reasons or justification. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. BDR Builders and Developers Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 111 (Del). 17. The Court has examined the above order whereby the Court remanded the matter back to ITSC for fresh determination on the aspect of granting of immunity from p....