AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd honey as also manufacture of syrups, jams and squash under the brand 'Lion dates'. According to the appellant, they are regularly filing the returns of income along with tax audit report as required under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"). While so, on 17.07.2013, search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in various premises of the appellant, inclusive of the residences of the Directors. At the time of search, two sworn statements were recorded under Section 132 of the Act by two different officers of the investigation wing. Subsequently, on 06.08.2013, another sworn statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act by the investigation officer. 2.2. On the basis of the search conducted and the documents seized, notices dated 28.01.2014 under Section 153A of the Act was issued relating to the assessment years from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014. For the assessment year 2007-2008, separate notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment under section 147 was issued. In response to the notices issued under Section 153A of the Act, the appellant filed their returns of income on 01.03.2014. They also filed their return of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ys 2007-2008 to 2014-2015 is held as not invalid." 2.4. Pursuant to the above order passed by the Settlement Commission, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a report dated 19.06.2015 under Rule 9 of the ITSC (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and as provided under Section 245D (3) of the Act before the Commission on 29.06.2015, in which the issues of difference between the unaccounted income and the income disclosed by the appellant under Section 132 (4) of the Act, were analysed. Repudiating the so-called differences, the appellant filed a detailed reply before the Commission on 13.04.2016, in which all the points raised by the Department or the so-called differences between the unaccounted income and the actual income were clarified by the appellant with documentary evidence. Subsequently, the second respondent posted the case for hearing for final settlement under section 245D(4) on 23.06.2016, on the said date, the department filed a report raising new grounds which were not earlier taken in the Rule 9 report, as regards the unaccounted income arising from inflated purchases, deduction for 80IB claim, etc and the said report was forwarded to the appellant on 04.07.2016. To ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement application dated 02.03.2015 and forbearing the fourth respondent from proceeding further with respect to the assessment for the assessment years in question. 3.1. Opposing the writ petition, the third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the appellant has not come forward to truly and fully disclose the income and therefore, the Commission had rejected the Settlement Application filed by them. The claim made by the appellant on various accounts, is contrary to the records produced earlier. Above all, the appellant had produced the documents in a piece meal manner, as and when a particular issue was raised by the Department. Therefore, in the order dated 30.09.2016, in para No. 7.9.8, it was concluded that figures that were submitted by the appellant claiming deduction under Section 801B of the Act were altered after the department pointed out the same. In Para No.7.9.15 also, the Commission had referred to the report of the department stating that certain disclosure of additional income during the last hearing would amount to concealment of actual income. In Para No.9.8 of the order of the Commission it was further pointed out that the disclosu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition as also the written submissions, simply reproduced the passages from the order of the second respondent, which was impugned in the writ petition, and concluded that there was no full and true disclosure of the income. In other words, the learned Judge has not independently dealt with the grounds raised by the appellant, but passed a cryptic order. 5.2. The learned counsel further proceeded to contend that the Director General of Income Tax, before whom the search report was filed, had become the Vice Chairman of the Settlement Commission and decided the settlement application against the appellant, whereas the functions of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) prescribed under the Organization Structure issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as part of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance clearly spelt out that the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) shall have control, supervision and administers the Directors of Income Tax (Investigation), Commissioners of Income Tax (Central), the Directors of Commissioner of Income Tax, Additional/Joint/ Deputy Directors etc. While so, the Vice Chairman of the Second respondent Commission, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h and investigation conducted in the premises of the appellant and therefore, the decision rendered by the Second respondent Commission is liable to be interfered with on the ground of bias. 5.4. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that on 29.09.2016, a detailed report dated 28.09.2016 was filed by the department and it was also served on the appellant. However, the appellant had no occasion to submit their objections to the said report. The second respondent Commission, without providing time for the appellant to submit their objections, reserved the application for orders and hastily passed orders on the next day i.e., on 30.09.2016, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5.5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per Section 245D of the Act, the Settlement Commission can only direct the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to make or cause to be made during the enquiry and furnish the report relating to the contents of the Settlement Application. However, by deviating the well settled procedure the second respondent Commission directed the AO to be present to verify the reply submitted by the appellant and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceedings, rejected the Settlement Application as not maintainable. The Settlement Commission being a quasi judicial body, has given valid findings as to why the application for settlement submitted by the appellant, could not be entertained. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Settlement cannot be interfered with by this Court. It is the specific contention on the side of the respondents that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is exerciseable only with regard to the decision making process and not on the decision arrived at by the Commission. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of S.V. Shankar vs. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) [2007 (292) ITR 633 (Mad)] wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "It may be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India is not that of the appellate Court. The provision for settlement under Chapter XIX-A is in the nature of a statutory arbitration to which a person may submit himself voluntarily. Hence, the power to review that may be exercised under Article 226 of The Constitution of India could only be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hairman of the Second respondent Commission, who has nothing to do with the investigation or search conducted in the premises of the appellant at the relevant point of time. 6.4. As regards the deduction claimed by the appellant under Section 801B(11A) of the Act, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that even during the year 2005-2006, the appellant made a claim for deduction upon construction of a new building and identifying the said building as "Syrup Unit". It was also stated by the appellant that such new building was constructed on 31.05.2016, which could be evident as per the Special Notice of Property Tax for new assessment. While so, the claim of the appellant as if the building was constructed only during March 2011 and therefore, they are entitled for depreciation, cannot be countenanced. 6.5. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that all the procedures contemplated under the Act have been followed in the matter of deciding the settlement application submitted by the appellant. The learned Judge, on considering the order passed by the Settlement Commission, had concluded that the appellant has not disclosed the true and accurat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication exceeds ten lakh rupees, and such tax and the interest thereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been paid on or before the date of making the application and the proof of such payment is attached with the application. ...... (4) An assessee shall, on the date on which he makes an application under sub-section (1) to the Settlement Commission, also intimate the Assessing Officer in the prescribed manner of having made such application to the said Commission 245D. Procedure on receipt of an application under section 245C.- (1)On receipt of an application under section 245C, the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, issue a notice to the applicant requiring him to explain as to why the application made by him be allowed to be proceeded with, and on hearing the applicant, the Settlement Commission shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the application, by an order in writing, reject the application or al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 2007, was not passed before the 1st day of June, 2007, such application shall not be allowed to be further proceeded with unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time already granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007. 3. The Settlement Commission in respect of - (i) an application which has not been declared invalid under sub-section (2C); or (ii) an application referred to in sub-section (2D) which has been allowed to be further proceeded with under that sub-section, may call for the records from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and after examination of such records, if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case, and the 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] shall furnish the report within a period of ninety days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. (6A) Where any tax payable in pursuance of an order under sub-section (4) is not paid by the assessee within thirty-five days of the receipt of a copy of the order by him, then, whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of such tax or has allowed payment thereof by instalments, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at one and one-fourth per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days aforesaid. (6B) The Settlement Commission may, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (4)- (a) at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed; or (b) at any time within the period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation for settlement had been made by the applicant under that section covered such proceeding also : Provided that no proceeding shall be reopened by the Settlement Commission under this section if the period between the end of the assessment year to which such a proceeding relates and the date of application for settlement under section 245C exceeds nine years : Provided further that no proceeding shall be reopened by the Settlement Commission under this section in a case where an application under section 245C is made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007. Powers and procedure of Settlement Commission. 245F. (1) In addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under this Chapter, it shall have all the powers which are vested in an income-tax authority under this Act. (2) Where an application made under section 245C has been allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers andperform the functions of an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch person on an application made to it in this behalf and on payment of the prescribed fee : Provided that, for the purpose of enabling any person whose case is under consideration to rebut any evidence brought on record against him in any such report, the Settlement Commission shall, on an application made in this behalf, and on payment of the prescribed fee by such person, furnish him with a certified copy of any such report or part thereof relevant for the purpose. Power of Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. 245H. (1) The Settlement Commission may, if it is satisfied that any person who made the application for settlement under section 245C has cooperated with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it and has made a full and true disclosure of his income and the manner in which such income has been derived, grant to such person, subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose for the reasons to be recorded in writing immunity from prosecution for any offence under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under any other Central Act for the time being in force and also (either wholl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 245D; or (iiia) in respect of any application made under section 245C, an order under sub-section (4) of section 245D has been passed not providing for the terms of settlement; or (iv) in respect of any other application made under section 245C, an order under sub-section (4) of section 245D has not been passed within the time or period specified under sub-section (4A) of section 245D, the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "specified date" means - (a) in respect of an application referred to in clause (i), the day on which the application was rejected; (b) in respect of an application referred to in clause (ii), the 31st day of July, 2007; (c) in respect of an application referred to in clause (iii), the last day of the month in which the application was declared invalid; (ca) in respect of an application referred to clause (iiia), the day on which the order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was passed not providing for the terms of settlement;] (d) in respect of an application referred to in clause (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax and interest paid on or before the date of making the application or during the pendency of the case before the Settlement Commission. Order of settlement to be conclusive. 245-I. Every order of settlement passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, be reopened in any proceeding under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force. Proceedings before Settlement Commission to be judicial proceedings. 245L. Any proceeding under this Chapter before the Settlement Com- mission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Disclosure of information in the application for settlement of cases. Rule 44CA.(1) The Settlement Commission shall, while calling for a report from the Commissioner under sub-section (2B) of section 245D, forward a copy of the application in Form No. 34B ([(including the Annexure and the statements] and other documents accompanying such Anne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on or before the expiry of the specified period of forty-five days or within further extended period as the Commission may allow, as the case may be, the Commission may proceed to hear the case without such report. (3) A copy of the report of the Commissioner under sub-rule (1) of rule 9 shall be sent to the applicant by the Commission. Applicant's Comments on Commissioner's report under rule 9. 9A.(1) The applicant may furnish comments on the Commissioner's report received under rule 9 within fifteen days of the receipt of the copy of the said report by him or within such extended period as may be allowed by the Commission on a written request made by the applicant. (2) The comments of the applicant shall be accompanied by a paper book in support thereof, having the specifications referred to in rule 7. (3) If the applicant fails to furnish comments on or before the expiry of the specified period of fifteen days or within further extended period under sub-rule (1), the Commission may proceed further with the case without such comments. Verification of additional facts. 15. Where in the course of any proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed or passed by the Commission under Section 4 and not with the orders passed under Section 245D (1) or (2C) of the Act. There is no provision under the Act to review or recall the order under sub-sections (1), (2C) and (4) and the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record or amend any order passed by it referred in sub-section 6B is also confined only to an order under sub-section 4. The word "apparent" makes it clear that the mistake must be visible from the face of the record and is not be discerned by a fishing and roving enquiry. As per section 245F, once an application is filed and until rejected, it is only the commission which has powers as that of an Income Tax Authority to deal with matters or issues before it within the scheme of settlement of cases and the Assessing Officer ceases to have any powers. The powers therein are not akin to the powers of an assessing authority making regular assessment or revision of assessment to accept or deny the explanation offered by the assessee, but rather the scope of enquiry would be confined to the true and full disclosure, co-operation with the commission and the manner in which such income has been derived. The po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob case, "this limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be." 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... objections of the Commissioner. As mentioned hereinbefore, the only short ground which was sought to be canvassed before us was whether after the amended Act the order had been rightly set aside and whether the appellant had a right to be heard on the objections of the Commissioner. Mr Harish Salve, counsel for the appellant contends that it had a right to be heard. On the other hand Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order proceeded on the assumption that the objections had been heard. He did not, in fairness to him it must be conceded, contest that in a matter of this nature the appellant had a right to be heard. Reading the order, it appears to us, that though the appellant had made submissions on the Commissioner's objections but there was no clear opportunity given to the appellant to make submissions on the Commissioner's objections in the sense to demonstrate that the Commissioner was not justified in making the objections and secondly, the Commission should not accept or accede to the objections in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We are of the opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. The Supreme Court held thus: "47. The preliminary objection raised by Shri A.K. Sen need not detain us because we are satisfied that the amplitude of Article 136 is wide enough to bring within its jurisdiction orders passed by the Settlement Commission. Any Judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal, comes within the correctional cognisance and review power of Article 136. The short question, then, is whether the Settlement Commission cannot come within the category of "Tribunals". To clinch the issue, Section 245L declares all proceedings before the Settlement Commission to be judicial proceedings. We have hardly any doubt that it is a Tribunal. Its powers are considerable; its determination affects the rights of parties; its obligations are quasi-judicial; the orders it makes at every stage have tremendous impact on the rights and liabilities of parties. xxxxxxxxx In short, Settlement Commissions are Tribunals. The preliminary point fails." Thus the Settlement Commission is held to be a Tribunal. That being the position, the petitioner is entitled to seek judicial revie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the said amendment being procedural, it would govern the pending proceedings and the Commission would have the power to overrule the objections of the Commissioner. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, appearing for the revenue, did not seriously contest that position. He accepted the position that the law as it is, after the amendment authorises the Commission to consider and overrule the Commissioner's objection. He also very fairly, in our opinion and [ Vide Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed. B.J./61 dated 21-8-1989] rightly accepted the position that the appellant was entitled to be heard on the Commissioner's objections. It appears to us, therefore, if that is the position then, in our opinion, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the objections of the Commissioner. As mentioned hereinbefore, the only short ground which was sought to be canvassed before us was whether after the amended Act the order had been rightly set aside and whether the appellant had a right to be heard on the objections of the Commissioner. Mr Harish Salve, counsel for the appellant contends that it had a right to be heard. On the other hand Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Buragohain [(1980) 4 SCC 336 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 143 : AIR 1980 SC 1524] in which this Court indicated as to when the High Court can interfere with the orders of quasi-judicial authority. This observation may be quoted which is as follows: (SCC pp. 339-40, para 16) "16. While on facts the order of the Board under appeal is not impeccable, we must remember that under Article 226 of the Constitution, a finding of fact of a domestic tribunal cannot be interfered with. The High Court in the exercise of its special jurisdiction does not act as a court of appeal. It interferes only when there is a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record committed by the domestic tribunal. Such is not the case here. It is true that a finding based on no evidence or purely on surmises and conjectures or which is manifestly against the basic principles of natural justice, may be said to suffer from an error of law. In the instant case, the finding of the Board that the appellant does not possess the necessary financial capacity, is largely a finding of fact. Under Rule 206(2) of the Assam Excise Rules, an applicant for settlement of a shop is required to give full information regardin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s noted above remained undisputed. On those facts the High Court has simply stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commission had gone wrong in law. Thus, the High Court has simply applied the correct principle of law on the admitted facts. This, according to us, was well within the powers of the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such remand of the High Court has been held permissible in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi[Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389 : (1993) 201 ITR 611] which was also concerning the powers of the Settlement Commission, albeit under Section 245-D(4) of the Income Tax Act. The principle of law remains the same and can be applied in case of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under the Central Excise Act as well." From the above judgments, it is clear that the power of the High Court to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Commission is available, when the commission has violated the procedures prescribed under the Act which includes the grant of opportunity and the obligation to consider the materials before the Commission. Similarly, when there are no nexus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the third respondent, there was no mention about the discrepancy with regard to the claim under section 80IB; and the order dated 05.05.2015 passed under section 245D(2B) of the Act, did not refer anything in this regard. Further, even before the search, the claim of section 80IB deduction was made in their return of income filed on 30.09.2012 for the assessment year 2012-13, which fact was also recorded in paras 4.7.2 and 4.7.9 of the order impugned in the writ petition. However, the said issue was raised by the assessing officer for the first time, in his report filed on 22.09.2016, to which, the appellant has properly responded by filing reply with material evidence. Even then, the settlement commission rejected the application on the ground that there is no true and full disclosure of income, which is completely illegal and unfair to the appellant. 14. It is also brought to the notice of this court that in para 7.3, the settlement commission has recorded that the claim of the appellant that a new unit has started in financial year 2011-12, is not factually correct, whereas in para 7.9.12, the settlement commission has stated that it cannot decide the principles of law. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein, while dealing with a situation where a candidate himself was part of the selection board, the Apex Court setting aside the entire selection, held as follows: "15. It is unfortunate that Naqishbund was appointed as one of the members of the selection board. It is true that ordinarily the Chief Conservator of Forests in a State should be considered as the most appropriate person to be in the selection board. He must be expected to know his officers thoroughly, their weaknesses as well as their strength. His opinion as regards their suitability for selection to the All-India Service is entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included Naqishbund as a member of the selection board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It is true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his name was considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board. Further admittedly he participated in the deliberations of the selection board w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the opinion expressed by Naqishbund. 23. One more argument of the learned Attorney General remains to be considered. He urged that even if we are to hold that Naqishbund should not have participated in the deliberations of the selection board while it considered the suitability of Basu, Baig and Kaul, there is no ground to set aside the selection of other officers. According to him it will be sufficient in the interest of justice if we direct that the cases of Basu, Baig and Kaul be reconsidered by a Board of which Naqishbund is not a member. Proceeding further he urged that under any circumstance no case is made out for disturbing the selection of the officers in the junior scale. We are unable to accept either of these contentions. As seen earlier Naqishbund was a party to the preparation of the select list in order of preference and that he is shown as No. 1 in the list. To that extent he was undoubtedly a judge in his own case, a circumstance which is abhorrent to our concept of justice. Now coming to the selection of the officers in the junior scale service, the selections to both the senior scale service as well as junior scale service were made from the same poo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. ..." 27. In State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 675] , this Court had laid down that Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as an independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. In paras 28 and 30 the following has been held: (SCC p. 782) "28. An Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases." The underlying ratio in the above case is that no man can be a prosecutor and also an adjudicator. In the case before us, the Vice chairman of the second respondent was the DGIT, when all the actions were taken against the appellant i.e., notices under section 153A, notice under section 148, notice under section 142(1) and investigation report as well as the Rule 6 and Rule 9 reports filed before the settlement commission. Though it was contended on the side of the respondent/Revenue that the vice chairman of the second respondent has no role in the investigation or search conducted in the premises of the appellant, the same cannot be countenanced by this court, as the possibility of bias involved in this case, cannot be ruled out. 18. Chapter XIX-A contemplates assessment by settlement unlike chapter XIV which contemplates regular assessment proceedings. The scope of enquiry under Chapter XIX-A is restricted to true and full disclosure, co-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at escaped assessment. Therefore, it is completely unnecessary and beyond the scope of the commission to find fault or with the modus operandi of the assessee in arranging their tax liability, while deciding an application under Section 245D. In the present case, we are satisfied that the assessee has fully disclosed all the primary facts and produced the documents in support of the same. At the cost of repetition, all the materials placed before the Commission are to be considered as per Section 245D (5). Therefore, we do not agree with the finding of the settlement commission that there is no full and true discloure of the income by the appellant and hence, the application is not maintainable. It is relevant to point out that no new materials were produced by the department to enable the settlement commission to take a different view that there was no true and full disclosure. Rather, the department and the settlement commission have embarked upon to alter their earlier view or inference, which cannot be a reason to thwart the application as not maintainable. The paradox in the functioning of settlement commission, comprising of senior members from the department, deviating from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 07.09.2021 was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, 7th September, 2021 PRESS RELEASE CBDT allows taxpayers an opportunity to file application for settlement The Finance Act, 2021 has amended the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to inter alia provide that the Income-tax Settlement Commission ("ITSC") shall cease to operate with effect from 01.02.2021. Further, it has also been provided that no application for settlement can be filed on or after 01.02.2021, which was the date on which the Finance Bill, 2021 was laid before the Lok Sabha. In order to dispose off the pending settlement applications as on 31.01.2021, the Central Government has constituted Interim Board for Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Board"), vide Notification no. 91 of 2021 dated 10.08.2021. The taxpayers, in the pending cases, have the option to withdraw their applications within the specified time and intimate the Assessing Officer about such withdrawal. It has been represented that a number of taxpayers were in advanced st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the applications filed by the assessees based on the directions of the High Courts would be entertained. Following the press release, an order under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act came to be passed, which reads as follows: " ORDER Civic Centre, New Delhi Dated the 28.09.2021 Subject: Order under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for filing applications for settlement before the Interim Board for Settlement - reg. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended the provisions of the Act to inter alia provide that the Income-tax Settlement Commission (lTSC) shall cease to operate with effect from 01.02.2021. Further, it has also been provided that no application for settlement can be filed on or after 01.02.2021, which was the date on which the Finance Bill, 2021 was laid before the Lok Sabha. In order to dispose off the pending settlement applications as on 31.01.2021, the Central Government has constituted Interim Board for Settlement (hereinafter referred to as the "Interim Board"), vide notification No. 91 of 2021 dated 10.08.2021. 2. Meanwhile, in order to avoid genuine hardship to number of taxpayers who were in the advanced stages of f....