TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 56
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner under Section 245H(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of imposing lesser amount of penalty. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the settlement commission granting partial immunity to the petitioner under Section 245H(1) of the Act in respect of imposition of penalty is contrary to the spirit of the scheme of settlement commission and particularly under Section 245H(1) of the Act. Petitioner in support of its contention relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - II vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr. reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Del 626, particularly paragraph 14 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT on 17.10.2012, that by the assessee's own admission, purchase invoices were bogus to the extent of Rs. 43.78 crores instead of Rs. 39.53 crores, the assessee made a further disclosure of Rs. 4.25 crores. After all the reports were examined by the ITSC and after considering the evidence adduced by both the sides, it found that the assessee ought to have offered the entire amount of Rs. 117.98 crores, being the bogus purchases of cement and steel from 5 parties as against Rs. 39.53 crores offered by it. It was only at that stage, when cornered and when it was unable to rebut the evidence and the facts established by the evidence, that the assessee came forward with the additional income of Rs. 78.45 crores, which when added to Rs. 39.53....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may not be without justification to say that the assessee was indulging in abuse of a well-intentioned statutory provision. It is certainly open to the ITSC to grant immunity to an applicant from penalty and prosecution. This power, however has to be exercised only in accordance with law i.e. on satisfaction of the conditions of Section 245H(1). We are constrained to observe that the majority view taken by the ITSC in the present case reflects a somewhat cavalier approach, perhaps driven by the misconception that granting of immunity from penalty and prosecution was ritualistic, once the assessee discloses the entire concealed income, ignoring the vital requirement that it is the stage at which such income is offered that is crucial and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded on the basis of which actual receipts were found considerably higher than disclosed in SA. During the course of hearing also, the A.R. could not reconcile various discrepancies and mismatches. The AR finally admitted the error and stated that a fair view may be taken by the Commission in this regard. For subsequent A. Yrs. Viz., 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, again the applicant has not disclosed full receipts from the profession. The heavy suppression of income is evident from additions made for various Assessment Years as per discussion in preceding para. It is also admitted that there is no documentary evidence in support of several cash expenses/payments. The income and expenditure account submitted before the Commission appear to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reading the recording and finding of the settlement commission in the aforesaid paragraph 29 of the impugned order I find that the learned Settlement Commission itself has recorded that attitude of the assessee respondent was not acceptable to it and that it runs contrary to the settlement scheme and in its order settlement commission also recorded and came to the finding that the assessee's professional receipts were much higher than the requisite monetary limit and he was statutorily obliged to maintain proper record and books of accounts as per Section 44AA of the Income Tax Act yet the respondent assessee had continued with the default of not maintaining books of accounts of the four relevant assessment years and that such conduct of th....