TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 514
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d orders dated 28.03.2012 under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. These orders are sought to be assailed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner herein primarily on the ground that there was no true and full disclosure in the application filed by the second respondents in the respective writ petitions, inasmuch as the additional amount of income declared in the returns filed pursuant to notice issued under Section 153A by them was far lesser than the amount of income ultimately arrived by the 1st respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned order. 5. It is further stated that the amount the additional income offered for settling the case was not different from the amount that was of in the revised returns filed on 20.12.2010 pursuant to notice dated 41.2010 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was no further additional disclosure of income over and above Rs. 50,00,000/- . 6. It is further submitted that there there was a huge variance between the additional amount declared in the applications filed under Section 245C and the amount arrived by the first respondent for settling the cases of the respective 2nd respondent/app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as to whether there was adequate disclosure by respective 2nd respondent/applicant regarding additional income offered for tax, the tax and interest payable thereon. 13. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax had filed a report under Section 245D(2B) giving views/objections regarding the adequacy of the additional income disclosed by the 2nd respondent/applicant, payment of additional tax thereon and interest, etcetera and regarding compliance of the proviso to Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that there was no procedural irregularity. 14. It is submitted that after receipt of the said report filed the Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 245D (2B) and after recording satisfaction to proceed the settlement application, the Settlement Commission passed order under Section 245 D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961by allowing the application filed by the 2nd respondent/applicant. 15. It is submitted that only after order under Section 245D (2C) was passed by the first respondent Settlement Commission, a comprehensive report under Rule 9 of the Income Tad Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of the respective 2nd respondent/applicants/second respondents namely Accent Pharama, Maral Labs and Madras Pharmaceuticals which are partnership concerns having few common partners. 25. All the three concerns were issued with notice dated 4.1.2010 under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Under these circumstances, all the three concerns approached the Settlement Commission. 26. Eventually, all the applications filed for settling the case under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowed by the first respondent Settlement Commission by its separate orders dated 28.3.2012. 27. It is submitted that as far as facts are concerned, the finding of facts by the first respondent Settlement Commission and final. 28. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is the ultimate fact finding authority and therefore, it cannot be disturbed. In this connection attention was drawn to the following cases of the Courts:- i) R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) and another (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) ii) Saurasthra Cement Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, (2013) 22 GSTR 460 (Guj.) iii) Shriyans Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 4.1. 2010 were issued under Section 153 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These 2nd respondent/applicants later filed revised returns on 01.12.2016 and only on 16.12.2010 along with the 2nd applications under Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 35. The earlier applications were dismissed by orders dated 16.11.2010 in the case of these 2nd respondent/applicant (2nd respondent in W.P.No.24179 of 2013( The Madras Pharmaceuticals and W.P.No.24278 of 2013 (The Accent Pharma) & W.P.No.24147 of 2013 (Marlal labs) does not operate as a bar under Section 245 K of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from filing 2nd application. 36. These 2nd respondent/applicants therefore filed fresh application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.12.201 and 16.12.2020. On the same day, they also filed their revised returns in response to notices dated 4.1.2010 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 37. As far as the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.24147of 2013 is concerned, (M/s.Marlal Labs) both revised returns under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the application to settle the case under Chapter XIX A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were filed on the same date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961. The last date for filing returns expired on 3.2.2010 under the aforesaid provision. 42. The 2nd respondent/applicant M/s.Maral Labs [the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.24147 of 2013] filed a belated return on 20.12.2010. On the same day, the 2nd respondent/applicant also filed an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961before the 1st respondent Settlement Commission. 43. In the said application, the additional amount of income offered by the 2nd respondent - 2nd respondent/applicant for these block assessment years was Rs. 6,85,21,882/-. In the revised returns, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a total income of Rs. 13,91,45,419/-consisting of the aforesaid additional amount of Rs. 6,85,21,882/- and Rs. 7,06,23,537/- declared at the time of filing original. 44. Pursuant to reports filed by the petitioner's office, the 1st respondent Settlement Commission arrived at the total income of the 2nd respondent as Rs. 19,46,08,786/- by adding another amount of Rs. 5,54,63,342/-. 45. The above amount of Rs. 19,46,08,786/- finally determined by the 1st respondent over and above the amount Rs. 13,91,45,419/- declared by the 2nd respondent/applicant named....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) of the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the application against Item 11 of the form. Moreover, if an assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he would be making a fresh application in relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier application. In this regard, Section 245-C(3) of the Act which prohibits the withdrawal of an application once made under sub- Section (1) of the said Section is instructive inasmuch as it manifests that an assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedings. Therefore, by revising the application, the 2nd respondent/applicant would be achieving something indirectly which he cannot otherwise achieve directly and in the process rendering the provision of sub- Section (3) of Section 245-C of the Act otiose and meaningless. In our opinion, the scheme of said Chapter is clear and admits no ambiguity." 51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of the High Court as is evident from a reading of Para 39 of the said Judgment which is reproduced below . " 39. Before addressing the other issues, at the out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8-2009. The following table explains the income that was originally disclosed in the returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additional income offered under Section 245 C and the amount of income determined by the first respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned order. Assessment Year (1) Income returned originally (Rs.) (2) Additional Income offered under Section 245 D of I.T.Act (Rs.) (3) Revised Income filed 16.12.2020 (Rs.) (4) Total Additional income determined by the Settlement Commission (Rs.) (5) Additional Income determined by the Settlement Commission (Rs.) (6) Difference between additional income offered under Section 245 D of I.T.Act as in 3 and additional income determined by the Settlement Commission (Rs.) (7) 2003-04 19.56.160/- 1,40,670/- 20,96,830/- 19,56,160/- 20,96,830/- NIl 2004-05 25,13,170/- 2,10,92,110/- 2,36,05,280/- 2,84,67,182/- 4,95,59,292/- 2,59,54,012/- 2005-06 58,64,860/- 2,66,64,730/- 3,25,29,590/- 3,12,53,745/- 5,79,18,475/- 2,53,88,885/- 2006-07 1,73,45,670/- 2,66,92,900/- 4,40,38,570/- 46,59,677/- 3,13,52,577/- 1,2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment Year 2006-07 and 2007-08, the 1st respondent Settlement Commission has reduced the additional amount of income from Rs. 4,40,38,570/- to Rs. 1,26,85,993/- and for the Assessment Year 2007-08 from Rs. 4,24,66,350/- to Rs. 31,06,904/- which was unwarranted. 58. Thus, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ajmera Housing Corporation and another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 8 SCC 739 cited above squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. M/s.Accent Pharma:W.P.No.24278 of 2013 59. This case pertains to Block Assessment year 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. The following table will explain the income that was originally disclosed in the returns filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additional income offered in the application and the additional income arrived by the first respondent Settlement Commission in the impugned order. Assessnment Year Income returned originally (Rs.) Additional Income offered under Section 245 C of I.T.Act (Rs.) Total Income filed 20.12.2010 (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Additional amount determined in the impugned order by the 1^st respondent (Rs.) 2....