News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
I-T - When amended provisions of Sec 245HA(3) mandate access to Revenue to all materials furnished by assessee before SETCOM, even HC cannot prevent Revenue from doing so: Gujarat HC

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, SEPT 20, 2017: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether the amended provisons mandate access to the Revenue to all the materials declared before the SETCOM, the HC can still prevent the Revenue from doing so. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The Assessee-partnership firm filed an application u/s 245D(4) to the Commission for settlement of its block period assessments. The final order was reserved. During the pendency of the said proceeding, certain amendments were made in Chapter XIXA pertaining to settlement of cases. As per the amendments, the Assessee was required to pay additional tax and interest on the income disclosed before the Commission. However, the statute did not provide any final time limit for such payment, but, later it provided for abatement of the such settlement proceedings. Since, the settlement application was not disposed of before the amendments were made for abatement of pending proceedings, the Commission wrote a letter to the Assessee giving an opportunity to be heard. In reply, the Assessee requested the Commission to forward the orders passed in the settlement application u/s 245D(4).

The Settlement Commission passed an order by which it declared that the proceedings had abated due to non-compliance by the Assessee with the provisions of section 245D(2D) and directed the AO to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of section 245HA.

In Writ, the High Court held that,

++ the defence that the Assessee was not aware about the pendency of such proceeding ignores the documents on record. On 13.7.2007, the Settlement Commission had conveyed to the Assessee that there would be a further hearing on 7.8.2007. The footnote though was scored out in the copy forwarded to the Assessee obviously, because this did not concern the Assessee, did contain a reference to the CIT to state on the next date of hearing whether the requirement of payment of tax and interest as contained in section 245D(2D) has been fulfilled by the Assessee. As is evident from the Assessee's letter dated 31.7.2007 written to the Settlement Commission in response to the said communication, the Assessee received the same on 13.7.2017 itself;

++ well before the final date of 31.7.2017 for payment of additional tax and interest, the Assessee at any rate was aware that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission was not yet disposed of. The Assessee therefore had the responsibility to pay the tax and interest as provided in 245D(2D). The Assessee failed to comply with such requirement. In terms of section 245HA(1) therefore, the settlement proceeding would abate. This was automatic. The Settlement Commission by its judgment merely made a declaration of abatement which had even otherwise come about by virtue of operation of law. The Settlement Commission had no other alternative;

++ the alternative request of preventing the I-T authority from using the material on record before Settlement Commission cannot be accepted in terms of plain language used in section 245HA(3). As noted, the Assessee has not challenged the vires of this provision. In any case in an independent judgment we have upheld the same relevant provision, portion of which is noted in this judgment. In the result, petition is dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1967-HC-AHM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023