2026 (8) TMI 480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 09.01.2007 passed by Income Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 2. The Petitioner-Income Tax Department on 14.09.1999 searched business and residential premises of Nand Lal Garg-respondent No.1 and two brokers namely Anil Kumar Dalal-respondent No.3 and Sunil Bansal-respondent No.4. The search was conducted in terms of Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '1961 Act'). The respondent No.1-Nand Lal Garg who is answering respondent preferred an application dated 27.11.2000 before Income Tax Settlement Commission (for short 'Settlement Commission') seeking settlement of his liability. The petitioner submitt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ces, we do not see any reason to make any addition on this account. Accordingly, the settlement is accepted at Rs. 5,00,000/-. 34. The computation of income is enclosed as per annexure. 35. Shri Ashwani Kumar submitted that the immunities from penalty and prosecution may be granted as prayed for in the application. The applicant has extended full cooperation and had also completely disclosed the manner in which the additional income had been disclosed and paid the tax on the additional income so disclosed before the Commission. In these circumstances, the immunities from levy of penalties under the provisions of the IT Act and from prosecution are hereby granted, as prayed for. 36. The applicant has already paid t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounted transactions. The Settlement Commission failed to appreciate evidence on record. The Settlement Commission has further wrongly accepted contention of respondents that there were money lending transactions between the parties whereas alleged entries were disclosing unaccounted transactions of the respondent entailing tax liability. 4. The respondent No.1 in its reply has submitted that order passed by Settlement Commission is conclusive and cannot be reopened in any proceedings. The evidence led by both sides have been duly appreciated by Settlement Commission. This Court cannot reappreciate evidence already examined by Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission has considered statements of brokers which were tendered at the ....