Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 898 2009 SLD 898 (2009) 318 ITR 208
Bombay High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2534 OF 2006, JANUARY 14, 2008
F.I. REBELLO AND R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
Arun Sathe, Mandar Vaidya and Panjab Rao Naik for the Petitioner. Vimal Gupta and P.S. Sahadevan for the
Respondent.

Puranchandra J. Rao

v.

Income Tax Settlement Commission

Law:

Section:

Section 245D of the Income-tax Act 1961 - Settlement Commission - Procedure on application under section 245C Where Settlement Commission dismissed settlement application of petitioner holding that there was no full and true disclosure and that issues emerging out of search were not satisfactorily addressed, that could not be said to be case of "no reasons" and no interference was called for with order of Settlement commission Where the Settlement Commission had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no true and full disclosure : Held that the Settlement Commission in the impugned order firstly held that they did not see any complexity of investigation in resolving the disputes. Insofar as the question of full and true disclosure was concerned, it held that both the quantum and the manner of the disclosure did not pass the test of being full and true. It was also held that the issues emerging out of the search were not satisfactorily addressed while making the disclosure, after having carefully gone through the legal submissions and paper book. From the report of the Commissioner and the application made by the petitioner it was clear that he had disclosed income as managing agent of two petrol pumps. On investigation, it had come on record that the petitioner was not managing the petrol pump but, in fact, was running the same and paying commission to the licence-holders therein. It was this material which was before the Settlement Commission. In the instant case it was clearly set out that the issues emerging out of the search were not satisfactorily addressed. This could not be said to be the case of 'no reasons'. Therefore, no interference was called for with the Settlement Commission's order dismissing the settlement application. Arun Sathe, Mandar Vaidya and Panjab Rao Naik for the Petitioner. Vimal Gupta and P.S. Sahadevan for the Respondent. JUDGMENT By the Court : Petitioner has moved this Court seeking to challenge the order dt. 9th June, 2006 passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the IT Act and the order dt. 2nd Aug., 2006 under section 142(2A) of the IT Act. 2. Insofar as the order of the…
🔒
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