TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or settlement of its Income Tax matters by disclosing an income of Rs. 3,93,93,544/-. The aforesaid application of the respondent no. 2 was proceeded with under Section 245 D (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by an order dated 21st April, 2015. After receipt of the Report under Section 245 D (2B) of the Act, from the Commissioner of Income Tax concerned, hearing under Section 245 D (2C) of the Act was fixed on 3rd June, 2015 and the aforesaid Settlement application was held to be "not invalid". Thereafter, a Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 was called from the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax concerned and the said Report was received by the Learned Settlement Commission/respondent no. 1 on 3rd September, 2015. In the aforesaid Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 petitioner/Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-2) objected to the settlement of the case of the assessee/respondent no. 2 by alleging that it has not at all made true and correct disclosure of its undisclosed income before the respondent Settlement Commission and that the respondent no. 2 has failed to establish the mann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 245 C (1) of the Act for settlement. Respondent no. 2 further contends that petitioner could not produce any material to contradict the claim of the respondent no. 2 in its aforesaid application for settlement and considering the aforesaid settlement application, materials and documents before it, learned Settlement Commission/respondent no. 1 has proceeded with the same under Section 245 D (1) of the Act. Respondent no. 2 further contended that the explanation in the aforesaid Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, has no material and the whole case of the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures and is without any evidence in support of its suspicious claim. Respondent no. 2 also contended that it has fulfilled the criteria required for availing itself of immunity from penalty and prosecution and it has cooperated with the Settlement Commission and also extended full co-operation at every stage of the proceeding right from the survey operation conducted under Section 133A of the Act. Learned Settlement Commission/respondent no. 1 considering the submission and documents filed both by the petitioner and the assessee/respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up the entire legal position: "It is well-settled that while exercising the power of judicial review the court is more concerned with the decision making process than the merit of the decision itself. In doing so, it is often argued by the defender of an impugned decision that the court is not competent to exercise its power when there are serious disputed questions of facts; when the decision of the Tribunal or the decision of the fact finding body or the arbitrator is given finality by the statute which governs a given situation or which by nature of the activity the decision maker's opinion on facts is final. But while examining and scrutinizing the decision making process it becomes inevitable to also appreciate the facts of a given case as otherwise the decision cannot be tested under the grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. How far the court of judicial review can re-appreciate the findings of facts depends on the ground of judicial review. For example, if a decision is challenged as irrational, it would be well-nigh impossible to record a finding whether a decision is rational or irrational without first evaluating the facts of the case and comin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle of natural justice (audi alterant partem) has been incorporated in Section 245D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same-whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant." "25. In Shriyans Prasad Jain v. ITO [1993] 204 ITR 616 (SC) the Supreme Court, speaking through the same learned judge, observed as follows (page 627): "Mr. Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this court would not go into questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993] 201 ITR 611 (SC) this court can interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be 'contrary to any of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant to note that the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) has been incorporated in Section 245- D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission thus appears to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the samewhether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf; may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) (1989) 1 SCC 628: 1989 SCC (Tax) 124: (1989) 176 ITR 169 which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J., observed that in such a case this court is "concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order". The learned Judge added "judicial review is concerned not with the decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame was not challenged on merits." Considering the submission of the parties, findings and reasons recorded by the learned Settlement Commission/respondent no.1 in its impugned order for allowing the settlement application of the assessee/respondent no.2 and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments cited in this case by the parties with regard to ambit and scope of interference by the High Court in its Constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the income tax settlement proceedings before the Settlement Commission, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Settlement Commission in this Writ Petition and dismissing the same for the following reasons: i) Petitioner/Income Tax authorities have failed to make out any case in this Writ Petition that the learned Settlement Commission has acted in any manner contrary to or in violation of any provision of law in course of impugned settlement proceeding or in passing the impugned order or that the same is not legal and valid or without jurisdiction and in disregard to the materials avai....