TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 133A was also conducted in the group concerns of the 1st respondent and sworn statements were recorded from Mr.S.Senthilnathan- Finance Director, Mr.Rajendran. 4. After search, Notice u/s 153A dated 23.09.2013 was issued to the 1st respondent for filing Return of Income for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2012-13 and on 28.02.2014, the 1st respondent filed ROI. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed Application u/s 245C for Settlement before the 2nd respondent on 27.03.2014. 5. The petitioner states that the first respondent has not made true and full disclosure of their income in the application as mandated under Section 245C(1) of the Act. This was clearly brought out in different reports including Rule 9 Report submitted before the 2nd respondent from time to time in the course of proceedings. Further, the second respondent has not considered the admission made by the Directors of the 1st respondnet in their sworn statement made under Section 132(4), though the same was specifically brought out in the Rule 9 Report. However, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 14.09.2015 had directed the 1st respondent to disclose further additional income to the tune of Rs. 7.70 crore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and arriving at the terms of settlement as under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The second respondent has considered all the submissions, records and evidences and passed a detailed order, after providing appropriate reasons. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The first respondent contended that the sole grievance of the petitioner stems out of factual matters which have been duly considered by the second respondent after a thorough enquiry and a detailed 'speaking order' has been passed by the second respondent in this regard. Therefore, the factual disputes now raised by the petitioner deserve no merit adjudication. The second respondent had gone into all the disclosures, evidences and the confidential report submitted by the second respondent as well as the objections filed by the petitioner/Department under Rule 6, Rule 9 and the Joint Verification Report along with replies thereto furnished by this respondent. Therefore, there is no necessity for re-appreciation of the settled disptues which would not fall under the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the said contention, the first respondent relied on the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excluded from the calculation under Rule 8D(2)(ii). 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the findings made in the impugned order dated 14.09.2015. 12. It is contended that the respondent filed single application to settle the disputes for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 (i.e) for seven years. Undoubtedly, an assessee is at liberty to file single application for multiple assessment years for settling the disputes under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act. However, it is pointed out that the additional incomes offered before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2013-14 are nil. Drawing inference, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that when the additional incomes offered are nil with reference to two assessment years, question of assessment would not arise at all. Thus, the very single application filed for seven assessment years is perverse and untenable. 13. It is not in dispute that for entertaining an application for settlement under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, the assessee must disclose true and full incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: 9.1.18. The applicant has submitted the following details on the list of 1590 codes given by the Department in their letter dated 31.08.2015: Total number of codes given by the Department 1590 Less:Duplicate codes 81 Codes having no transactions 158 Farmer codes having transaction 239 1351 The total purchases in regard to the codes identified for the period from F.Y 2006-07 to 2012-13 amounted to Rs. 30,45,25,023/- which the Department would like to treat as bogus purchases. Two major flaws have been pointed out by the applicant. The first is the bogus farmers codes given by the applicant at the time of filing the application are continuous in nature i.e., one code appearing after another in a chronological manner. It was pointed out by the applicant that the above farmer codes of 1351 are not continuous in nautre and therefore are distinguishable from the bogus farmer codes submitted by the applicant at the time of filing of the application. The second flaw that has been pointed out by the applicant is that the bogus farmers codes in their case do not appear in all the years. There may be thus according to the applicant, farmer having a particular code n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... true and full disclosure of income. When the additional income of Rs. 6 crores is offered during the progress of proceedings before the Settlement Commission, then an inference is to be drawn that the first respondent has not approached the settlement commission with clean hands and suppressed the income and not filed the application with full and true disclosure of income. 17. The conduct of the first respondent is established through the findings made in the impugned order in paragraph No.9.3.3, wherein the first respondent filed another letter dated 31.08.2015 furnishing details of the actual amount incurred and claimed by the applicant and also offering additional income being excess claim u/s 35(2AB) and actual amount allowed by DSIR in which the amount which is required to be disallowed and added to income. Accordingly, the amount to be added for AY 2012-13 will be 11.84 + 35.93 =47.77 lakhs and for assessment year 2013-14, it will be 65.89 lakhs. 18. The above facts elaborated would be sufficient to arrive a conclusion that the first respondent filed an application under Section 245C of the Act without disclosing true and full income for the purpose of settling the disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee is a condition precedent for settlement of cases and for grant of immunity from penalty and prosecution. Sections 245C and 245H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplate full and true disclosure by the applicant of income and the manner in which such income has been derived. When once it is held that an application filed for settlement of cases is not maintainable on the ground that the applicant has not made full and true disclosure of the income, proceeding with such application and deciding the issue would be outside the power of the Settlement Commission, as the application itself is not in conformity with Section 245C(1) of the Act. A similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. C.M.K. Reddy vs. Settlement Commission, (2008) 306 I.T.R. 403 (Mad). 11. So far as Section 245F is concerned, though the Settlement Commission is empowered to have all powers which are vested in an Income Tax Authority under the Act, in addition to the power conferred under Chapter XIXA, but such power can be exercised for the purpose of procedure of settlement of application under Section 245C and not for re-assessment of tax of a particular year which is vested with....