AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1390
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a second of its kind by the same petitioner. 2. The earlier Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4900 of 2015 was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 24th February, 2015 passed by the ITSC. By an order dated 18th May, 2015, that writ petition was allowed by this Court and the order dated 24th February, 2015 of the ITSC was set aside. The reason was that on the date of hearing before the ITSC i.e. 19th February, 2015, an additional set of documents, running to over 200 pages, was placed by the Commissioner Income Tax (CIT) before the ITSC. Apart from the hearing conducted on the very next date i.e. 20th February 2015, there was no occasion for the Petitioner to deal with the additional set of documents and address the ITSC on them. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the setting aside of the order dated 24.02.2015 shall not come in the way of the Settlement Commission on taking a view on the matter. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master" 4. The matter then went back to the ITSC. It appears that within four days of the passing of the above order by this Court, the Petitioner tendered a written note of submissions dated 22nd May, 2015 before the ITSC. The Department appears to have objected to the ITSC considering this written note of submissions. This is evident from para 13.2 of the impugned order. In para 13.3 of the impugned order dated 4th June, 2015 the ITSC observed as under: "13.3. We have considered the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to the bank account opened/ operated by the applicant is to be taken into consideration during the present proceeding or not. It is the submission of the Department that these two informations are very vital to determine the truth in the matter and it will be fatal on the part of the Commission to ignore the same. It is also the submission of the Department that these two letters relate only to the issue of the bank account and the flat at London which are in consideration and remitted by the Hon'ble High Court to the Commission. (b) We agree with the submissions made by the Department that these two informations submitted by the Department dated 25.05.2015 with the Commission and received by the Department subsequent dated 19.02.2015 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4, Chesterfield House, South Audley Street, London for purchase price of GBP 38,50,000/-. This indemnity also authorized Board of Directors to appoint Solicitor Mischan de Raya for purchase of this property at London. This further establishes that the applicant Mr. Qureshi is the real owner of that flat. Besides that there are lots of e-mails which are part of the submission made by the CIT in their earlier submission and earlier hearing on 10.02.2015 and 19.02.2015 where the approval of artefacts and other furnishing including the carpets have been done by the applicant for which e-mails have been sent to employees of Sh. Qureshi for his approval. This also corroborates the fact of Sh. Moin Akhtar Qureshi being the real owner of the flat ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Arcas Holdings Ltd. 'the authorized signatory and a director of Barro and Bulova'. The important change which was sought by the Pr. CIT himself was for the ITSC to now acknowledge that there did exist a Power of Attorney (POA) on record which is now enclosed by the Pr. CIT with its application seeking the correction. 10. This application by the Pr. CIT was heard by the ITSC in the absence of any notice to the Petitioner. The ITSC accepted the application and by its subsequent order dated 26th June, 2015 corrected para 15.10 to read thus: "15.10. The power of attorney for the management of assets was signed by M/s Arcas Holding Ltd. and Shri Moin Qureshi and his address mentioned is C 134 Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024, Indas as se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fered further explanation before the ITSC by his written submissions dated 15th May, 2015 enclosing certain documents and that was never considered by the ITSC. 13. Neither the conclusion in para 15.18 of the order dated 4th June, 2015 or in any other portion of the said order, have the above written submissions of the Petitioner dated 22nd May, 2015 been discussed. 14. The Court is of the considered view that the ITSC ought to have, in the first instance, put the Petitioner on notice if it was going to entertain an application by the Department seeking 'correction' of its order. It is one thing to state that the said 'correction' was in fact beneficial to the Petitioner since the allowing of the application meant that the Petitioner'....