Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 3768 2008 SLD 3768 (2008) 299 ITR 119
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION No. 1427 OF 2007 OCTOBER 8, 2007
F.I. REBELLO AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Haji N. Abdulla

v.

Income Tax Settlement Commission

Law:

Section:

Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Settlement Commission - Application for settlement of cases - Block period 1-4-1990 to 27-2-2001 - Whether there cannot be a fresh application in respect of same subject-matter, if first application is rejected after assuming jurisdiction, as Settle-ment Commission is a quasi-judicial authority - Held, yes - Pursuant to a search, petitioner filed block return disclosing undisclosed income of Rs. 22,22,351 - Block assessment order was passed determining petitioner's undisclosed income at Rs. 82,68,217 - Petitioner filed an appeal against block assessment order and during pendency of same, he filed application under section 245C(1) before Settlement Commission offering Rs. 10 lakh as additional income - Application was rejected on grounds that at time of filing application there was no valid pendency of any proceeding as entire adjudication tax was not paid in pending appeal; and that there was no full and true disclosure of undisclosed income - Petitioner filed second application on basis that there was valid proceeding pending and offered a higher amount of Rs. 15 lakh as additional income - Settlement Commission was satisfied as regards pendency of proceeding, but rejected application on ground that making of full and true disclosure is a one-time activity - Petitioner filed writ petition challenging such rejection - Whether when Settlement Commission had recorded a finding that there was no true disclosure, it would then be a finding of fact and in subsequent proceeding it would not be open to Settlement Commission to review said finding in absence of any power to consider any fresh materials or cause of action - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, holding of Settlement Commission that considering finding recorded in first application, it would not be open to consider second application, could not be said to be without jurisdiction - Held, yes - Whether a person, who seeks to invoke jurisdiction of Commission, must come and disclose true facts and since nothing had happened between first disclosure and second disclosure warranting petitioner to disclose a larger quantum, finding arrived at by Commission that there was no…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492