TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion on 26.12.2019 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2018-19 and the same was rejected on 31.12.2019. Once again, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 245C before the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 11.01.2021 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2016-17 and the same was also rejected on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed another application before the 1st respondent / Interim Board for Settlement-II in third time on 15.09.2021, showing all the details of their income, for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2018-19. Upon filing the said application, the Interim Settlement Board had called for Rule 9 report from the 2nd respondent / Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the same was furnished on 27.05.2022. It was stated in the said report that, a sum of Rs. 22,17,00,000/- (22.17 Crores) had been received by the petitioner from Smt.VK Sasikala as his share in sale of Spectrum Mall, Perambur and the same was not disclosed by the petitioner in his income statement. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the above Rule 9 Report on 11.10.2022, wherein, it was stated that, the petitioner had not received any amount as share in sale of Spectrum Mall, P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears 2009-10 to 2016-17. It was also rejected for the same reason. However, the petitioner has now filed another application for settlement for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2018-19, without disclosing any additional income relating to the above said transaction. Therefore, it is submitted that, the only motive of the petitioner in filing the application one after another is to avoid the prosecution proceedings pending against him. Hence, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel would submit that, the 1st respondent has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and therefore, would pray to dismiss this writ petition. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials on record. 7. The present writ petition arises out of the order passed by the 1st respondent / Interim Board for Settlement-II, rejecting the settlement application filed by the petitioner in third time. Earlier, the petitioner had filed two applications for settlement before the Income Tax Settlement Commission for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2018-19 and 2009-10 to 2016-17 respectively. Both the applications came to be rejected for the reason that,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the additional income admitted in the returns filed u/s 153A) Additional income offered before the Hon'ble ITSC vide application dated 26.12.2019 Additional income offered before the Hon'ble ITSC vide applications dated 11.01.2021 Additional income offered before the Hon'ble ITSC vide applications dated 15.09.2021 (Current Application) 2009-10 2,61,13,476 4,00,000 1,50,000 1,50,000 2010-11 41,04,418 8,00,000 1,75,000 1,75,000 2011-12 4,94,36,318 10,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2012-13 14,51,47,247 18,00,000 14,00,000 14,00,000 2013-14 6,93,90,147 25,00,000 24,00,000 24,00,000 2014-15 12,15,62,852 33,00,000 45,00,000 47,50,000 2015-16 23,76,85,611 40,00,000 50,50,000 65,50,000 2016-17 - - - - 2017-18 22,17,00,000 - - - 2018-19 - - - - Total 87,51,40,069 1,38,00,000 1,41,75,000 1,59,25,000 Depreciation reserve withdrawn (in Rs. ): A.Y.s Depreciation reserve withdrawn before Hon'ble ITSC vide application dated 26.12.2019 Depreciation reserve withdrawn before Hon'ble ITSC vide app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng before ITSC. The delay tactics adopted by the applicant during prosecution proceedings to get benefit to immunity from prosecution from the Settlement Commission. 7.6 Further, it appears that the motive of the applicant is to settle the issues raised during the search and after the search without paying single penny on it. The Applicant has not disclosed his share of On money receipt on the transaction of Spectrum Mall. It is beyond doubt that there was an intention to transfer the property and part consideration was received in cash and the received cash was also utilized. However, no possession of the property was handed over the buyer in reasonable time frame. The applicant is under no obligation to return the money received towards his share in the property proposed for sale, i.e. Spectrum Mall, Perambur, Chennai. The applicant hold 11,135 sq ft out of the total undivided share of land of 64,222 sq ft that is 17.34% of the total UDS. A Memorandum of Understanding was executed to sell the property i.e M/s Ganga Foundation Pvt. Ltd had accepted the fact of receipt of Demonetized cash and clearly stated that out of the same Rs. 18 crores were paid to the Applicant. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f additional income, the 1st respondent / Interim Board for Settlement-II, has rejected the application dated 15.09.2021 stating that, there was no full and true disclosure of income by the petitioner. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that, in the event, the Settlement Board is not satisfied with the additional income offered by the assessee, it must point out valid reasons for not accepting the same. In the present case, keeping in view of the 18 Crores alleged to have been received by the petitioner from Smt.VK Sasikala in the proposed sale of Spectrum Mall, the Settlement Board has come to the conclusion that, the petitioner had not made full and true disclosure in his application. 11. In fact, the issue of non-disclosure of income by the petitioner pertaining to the above transaction of Rs. 18 Crores, was already raised before the Adjudicating Authority while the settlement application was pending before the 1st respondent / Interim Board for Settlement-II. The Adjudicating Authority, upon perusal of the entire documents relating to the above transaction, had come to the conclusion that, no such amount was received by the petitioner from Smt.VK Sasikala in the ....