TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 1601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2012, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in case of the petitioner. This led to notices under Section 153A of the Act when issued on 06.03.2013, the petitioner filed return in response to such notice on 09.04.2013. Search and survey operations were carried out in case of one Shri Sirish C Shah ['S.C.Shah' for short] and others at Mumbai. On 01.10.2014, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. On 11.11.2014, the petitioner applied for settlement by filing application for settlement of the cases for the assessment years 2008-08 to 2014-15. 4. The Settlement Commission passed an order admitting such application on 21.11.2014 in terms of Section 245D(1) of the Act. On 05.01.2015, Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, submitted his report dated 02.01.2015 to the Settlement Commission for deciding the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act. On the same day, the petitioner had also filed written submissions in the proceedings fixing for hearing under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. One of the grounds taken in such submissions was that, the statement of Shri S.C.Shah recorded at Mumbai was behind the back of the petitioner an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Pvt. Ltd. We have given detailed findings in the case of Shri Y.A.Thakkar and six others (S.A.No. GJ/AHCCI/ 078/201-15/IT for Shri Y.A.Thakkar) in which order is being passed alongwith Shri Y.A.Thakkar is stated to be the main person of "Amrapali Group" and the Managing Director of Amrapali Industries Ltd. and Director in M/s. Aashwina Construction Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Avichal Reality Pvt. Ltd. and various other companies of "Amrapali Group." Shri Y.A.Thakkar is also stated to be advising his son Shri Chirag Y. Thakkar in the management and control of Amrapali Fincap Pvt. Ltd. and Amrapali Capital and Finance Services Ltd., wherein his son Shri Chirag Y. Thakkar is a Director. For the purposes of brevity, the findings are not being reproduced here. 30. Conclusions: Keeping in view the representations both by the applicant and the department which are discussed in detail and our findings in the case of Shri Y.A.Thakkar supra which are applicable to the present case also, our specific findings on the facts of this case are as under:- 1. The applicant has disclosed total investments in its share capital of Rs. 98.90 crores in two financial years F.Y 2007-08 and 2008-09. It has admit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of this discussion it can be safely concluded that the applicant has not disclosed true and full facts of this trade and the income earned. The Assessing Officer will complete the investigation on account of such income to reach to a final conclusion in this matter. 4. The issue relating to claim of loss in trade in the share of M/s. Chandani Textile has been narrated in great details. The applicant has been able to indicate certain mismatch in the figures to claim that the department has failed to prove that the loss in this trade was not genuine. However, two facts remain uncontroverted. Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah an accomplice of the applicant was running an artificial trade in the share of M/s. Chandani Textile. In the excel spread sheets maintained by Shri Shirish C. Shah receipt of cash from Shri Yaswant A Thakkar is mentioned in great details, so much so that two separate accounts "commercial accounts" and"normal accounts" are maintained. The trade is being artificially managed with the use of funds provided by Shri Y.A.Thakkar. Such facts lead us to a belief that the applicant has not disclosed true facts in this instance and therefore the claim of loss is not genuine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te order passed by the Settlement Commission. However, at this stage, merely on an apprehension that there is likely to be a breach of the principles of natural justice, this court would not interfere with the conduct of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Under the circumstances, this court is not inclined to entertain these petitions at this stage as they are premature. 7. For the foregoing reasons, without entering into the merits of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitions being premature are dismissed at this stage. However, all contentions raised in these petitions are kept open to be agitated in an appropriate petition at any appropriate stage." 9. Facts are similar in all cases. The common order of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners have challenged in this group of petitions. Learned counsel Mr. R.K.Patel for the petitioners raised following contentions: (i) That the Settlement Commission had proceeded in breach of principles of natural justice by relying upon statements of several witnesses without offering cross examination to the petitioners. The Settlement Commission also did not grant reasonable time ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amination of such persons, the entire order of the Settlement Commission should not be struck down since the paramount requirement for a person applying for settlement is of making true and full disclosure. 11. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we may notice that the Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, reported in 62 Taxmann.com 3 held and observed that: "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross examine the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o establish the allegation of accommodation entries. The department, in the report under Rule 9, had referred to 26 other witnesses in addition to Shri S.C.Shah. The petitioners, therefore, requested as under: "The Applicants have to state that the statement of aforesaid persons being departmental witnesses recorded behind the back of aforesaid applicants have been used by Pr. CIT (Central) Ahmedabad against the applicants directly or indirectly for making allegation of accomodation entries, hence under the principle of Natural Justice and equity Cross examination of the aforesaid persons are required to be granted." 14. These facts would clearly demonstrate that the petitioners, from the outset, were keen on cross-examining of Shri S.C.Shah and other witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the department. 15. The fact, that the department did rely on such statements, is not possible to nor disputed. A report under Rule 9 and the reference made by the Settlement Commission in its impugned order to such statements would conclusively prove that insofar as the relation of the petitioner-company to Shri S.C.Shah and other related person is concerned, these statements did form....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commission essentially, on four grounds came to the conclusion that the petitioners had not made true and full disclosures. Undisputedly, sub paras 1 and 4 of para 30 of the conclusion portion of the order of the Settlement Commission is relatable to the statements of witnesses relied upon by the department without cross examination. However, undisputably, sub paras 2 and 3 of the same relates to entirely independent and unconnected transactions. In para 2, the Settlement Commission came to the conclusion that applicant i.e. the present petitioner had disclosed an income of Rs. 17.79 lacs at the rate of 7 paise per Rs. 100/- on an unaccounted trade in commodities which was estimated at Rs. 2134 croes. The Settlement Commission was of the opinion that the applicant had not given any evidence about actual trade, its quantum and the capital employed for such a huge turnover. The rate of brokerage claimed was also meager. In similar trade, the rate is upto Rs. 2 per Rs. 100/-. At such rate, the income could be estimated at Rs. 42 crores. On basis of such findings and conclusions, the Settlement Commission held that the applicant had not disclosed true and full facts of the trade and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of India would vary from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant statute as also other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi-judicial or administrative. It was observed that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a supervisory role. The power is not intended either to review governance under the rule of law nor for the courts to step into the areas exclusively reserved by the suprema lex to the other organs of the State. The court observed that the limited scope of judicial review is (i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies; (ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds (iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal. (iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review; the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a Court is limited to ....