Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-III Vs. SH. GOPAL GUPTA
June, 17th 2014
     THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 16.05.2014

+       W.P.(C) 1208/2013 & CM No.2299/2013

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-III ... Petitioner

                                       versus

SH. GOPAL GUPTA                                          ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr N.P. Sahni with Mr Nitin Gulati
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Parag Tripathi, Sr Advocate with
                               MrVivek Kohli, Mr Shwetank Tripathi,
                               Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Shivambika Sinha.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.      This writ petition, which has been filed by the Commissioner of

Income Tax, impugns the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the

Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the

Income Tax Act, 1961. It is also directed against the order dated

20.11.2012 passed by the Settlement Commission. The respondent

No.1 had approached the Settlement Commission by way of a




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                               Page 1 of 21
settlement application in respect of assessment years 2003-2004 to

2009-2010.


2.      Two points have been urged in this writ petition in the context

of the contention of the Revenue that the respondent No.1 had not

made a full and true disclosure and therefore the impugned orders

were liable to be quashed and set aside. The first point pertains to the

transaction concerning the property at Motia Khan, Karol Bagh in

respect of which the respondent No.1 alongwith his wife Smt. Vineeta

Gupta had declared a sum of Rs.7.6 crores as undisclosed investment.

Insofar as that issue concerning the property at Motia Khan is

concerned, it has been dealt with by us in a recent decision in the case

of the respondent No.1's wife Smt. Vineeta Gupta in WP(C) 829/2013

(Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vineeta Gupta) decided on

06.05.2014. That decision would cover the point taken in the present

petition with regard to the transaction concerning the property at

Motia Khan even insofar as the respondent No.1 herein is concerned.

The other issue which has been raised by the Revenue/petitioner is

with regard to five receipts of cash totalling to Rs.6.00 crores which

were found during the search operation which took place on




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                          Page 2 of 21
15.01.2009 at the premises of respondent No.1. The five receipts are

of Rs.2.00 crores and four others of Rs.1.00 crore each. The said

receipts were photocopies.     The respondent No.1 has stated that

although the said receipts representing Rs.6.00 crores were receipts of

loans received by the respondent No.1, the same had been disclosed as

income before the Settlement Commission. The stand taken by the

Revenue that the said sum of Rs.6.00 crores is not the principal

amount of loans received by respondent no.1 but only the interest

received by respondent No.1 on much larger loans extended by

respondent No.1 to five persons on 07.11.2008. As per the Revenue,

the receipts disclosed the rate of interest @1.25%. Since the Revenue

has taken the stand that the amounts received by respondent No.1

constituted interest payments, the total principal amount would

amount to Rs.80.00 crores. The Revenue has contended that while the

receipt of Rs.6.00 crores by way of interest has been disclosed to the

Settlement Commission, the principal amount of Rs.80.00 crores by

way of investment has not been disclosed and therefore the respondent

No.1 has not made a full and true disclosure of his income even before

the Settlement Commission which is a mandatory requirement under







W.P.(C)1208/2013                                         Page 3 of 21
Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.           Consequently, the

impugned order was liable to be set aside on this ground alone.


3.      One of the receipts dated 07.11.2008 which has been

reproduced in the impugned order dated 21.05.2012 is also set out

herein below:-


                                            "Dated 07.11.2008

                         RECEIPT

             I, Sri Gopal Gupta, owner of M/s. Flakes 'N'
       Flavourz here by confirm the Receipt of Rs.20000000/-
       (Rupees Two Crore only) from Mr.Ankit Agarwal, Delhi
       on 07.11.08 A/c Account of interest payable @1.25% for
       six months through Mr.Suresh Bansal.

                         1
                         Rupee
                         revenue
                         stamp
                          Sd/-
                   (Sr. Gopal Gupta)"

4.      The entire controversy in this case centers around the

interpretation given to the receipt. As per the Revenue, the receipt

indicates an amount by way of interest whereas as per the respondent

No.1 it was not received by way of interest and was the principal

amount of loan which was received by the respondent No.1 which he


W.P.(C)1208/2013                                         Page 4 of 21
has disclosed as his income before the Settlement Commission

because the lender would not come forward to confirm the cash loans.

Before the Settlement Commission, the Revenue raised the following

contentions on this issue:-


       "11. During the hearing the learned CIT(DR) has raised
       the contentions on this issue as under:-

              i.      During the search, the documents were
              seized which showed that Shri Gopal Gupta
              received interest of Rs. 6 crore on the loans given
              for six months. These documents, are
              acknowledgement receipts signed by Shri Gopal
              Gupta having received the amount. If the reverse
              calculation is done, it indicates that Shri Gopal
              Gupta advanced cash loan of Rs. 80 crores to
              five persons on 7.11.2008 for a period of six
              months. CIT(DR) further contended that the
              counsel of the applicant could not produce any
              evidence to show that loans were received by Sri
              Gopal Gupta. No confirmation from the persons
              who are mentioned in the documents have been
              submitted.
              CIT(DR) also drew attention to the statement of
              the applicant which was recorded under section
              132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and
              specially his answer to Q. No. 33 which is
              reproduced below :-
                   "I have gone through the pages shown by
                   you. I am unable to recollect right now the
                   exact nature of these receipts. I will have
                   to go through my records and consult the
                   concerned accountants to furnish the
                   required details asked by you. I shall


W.P.(C)1208/2013                                                 Page 5 of 21
                   submit the same as and when required in
                   due course of time"
              From the above' CIT(DR) has contended that the
              applicant    was     giving     evasive    replies.
              Considering that the transaction was executed on
              07.11.2008 and search took place on 15.01.2009,
              this was an afterthought. However only in the
              statement recorded in the month of June, 2009
              he submitted that it was actually a loan received
              by him for a period of six months. It is important
              to note that the word "loan" has not been
              mentioned on the documents seized during the
              search. As such, the explanation given by the
              applicant is clearly an afterthought. Even during
              the statement under section 132(4) of the Act,
              the applicant had given the evasive reply.
              (iii) The applicant has not disowned the
              documents and the contents. The presumption
              u/s. 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not
              been rebutted by him. The reference is placed on
              the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
              the case of Smt. Urmila Gambhir."


5.      On behalf of the respondent No.1, the submissions made before

the Settlement Commission were as under:-

       "12. During the course of hearing the learned AR has
       submitted as under:-
              i) The receipts represent the money borrowed by
              the applicant, Mr. Sri Gopal Gupta from different
              persons through a common broker Shri Suresh
              Bansal.




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                             Page 6 of 21
              ii)    The language of the receipts is cryptic
              and gives an impression that the receipts were on
              account of receipt of interest on some loan given.
              Whereas in actuality the receipts are in respect of
              money received as a loan totaling to Rs. six
              crores at an interest of 1.25 p.m. taken for 6
              months.
              iii)    The residential house, all the business
              premises and all the lockers of the applicant have
              been covered by the Income Tax Department and
              nothing has been found to indicate that any sum
              was advanced to the persons mentioned on the
              receipts on interest. Had it been so the applicant
              would have also preserved such papers
              (documents on strength of which normally a loan
              is given to secure it) along with these receipts. It
              is very unnatural that the applicant is preserving
              the photocopy receipts (of interest received) issue
              by him and does not preserve the original
              documents on the strength of such he could secure
              the repayment without which he could not have
              recovered the amount advanced, if any. It is
              submitted that no addition can be made merely by
              presuming or by assuming that the applicant
              would have advanced the sum without there
              being any document to show the same and the
              document being relied upon is only a photocopy
              and the language of which is cryptic.
              v)      The wording of the photocopy of the
              receipts is such which is as in the case of a person
              taking a loan i.e. identification of the borrower,
              his business particulars, amount of loan, period
              for which the loan is taken and the rate of interest
              and name of person from whom loan is taken is
              mentioned on such a receipt.




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                              Page 7 of 21
              vi)    The Department has option to make
              necessary enquiries from the broker Mr. Suresh
              Bansal whose address has been given and
              approach to the Commission in case of any
              misrepresentation of facts to make the settlement
              void.

       13.    It is claimed by the applicant that he has offered
       additional income of Rs.6 crores on account of such
       receipts as he cannot get confirmation of such loans from
       Shri Ankit Agarwal and other lenders as the transactions
       are unaccounted from both sides. It is argued that the
       persons who advanced loans will not confirm the
       unaccounted transactions on the basis of papers seized at
       the premises of the applicant as such confirmation would
       make him liable to tax."

6.      The conclusions of the Settlement Commission on the above

issue are as under:-


       "15. It is observed that there is no dispute that the
       amount of Rs. six crores has been received by the
       applicant on 07.11.2008. The dispute between the
       applicant and the Department is that whether the five
       receipts of total amount of Rs. 6 crores are on account of
       loans taken by Shri Sri Gopal Gupta from the persons
       mentioned in the receipts or whether the amount of Rs. 6
       crores are on account of interest received by Shri Sri
       Gopal Gupta on loans given by him to the said persons.
       16.    In our view, the words "A/c Account of interest
       payable @1.25% for six months" are very important and
       has to be interpreted considering the totality of
       circumstances. The words used are "interest payable" and
       not "interest receivable". The words "interest payable"
       will be applicable to the person who has signed the receipt



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                           Page 8 of 21
       and not to the person for whom the receipt is signed. It is
       seen that the five receipts are the photocopies and not the
       original receipts. Logically the original receipts will be
       kept by the person who may need it to use it as a safety in
       case of any default. The photocopy will be kept by the
       person who wants to keep it as a matter of record and no
       original record needed. In case of default, the photocopy
       of the receipts will not have any legal force. In such
       situation only original receipts will have legal validity. It
       is a wide practice that even in cases of unaccounted
       transactions, proper documents are executed in order to
       put pressure of legal action on borrower so that he may
       not default. Such a receipt also acts as a deterrent as any
       default would seriously affect the borrower's credibility in
       the market and nobody would do any business with him in
       future. Therefore, if Rs.6 crores is the interest, in that case,
       Shri Sri Gopal Gupta should have with him original copy
       of the receipts as well as necessary documents/ papers to
       support his claim in respect of amounts given as loan.
       Similarly, if Rs.6 crores are loans taken by Shri Sri Gopal
       Gupta on interest in that case the original receipts as well
       as original papers/documents in respect of such loans
       would be kept by lenders. In our view the fact that original
       copy of the receipts as well as other papers/documents in
       respect of Rs.6 crores were not found from the premises of
       the applicant, supports the case of the applicant as when
       he was keeping photocopy of the receipt, there was no
       reason why he would not have kept original copy of
       receipts and other papers/documents of loans with him.
        After taking into account all the facts in entirety, we
       are of the considered view that the amount of Rs. 6
       crores as mentioned in the receipts are loans taken by
       Shri Sri Gopal Gupta payable @ 1.25% interest for the
       period of six months. As the applicant has already offered
       Rs.6 crores as additional income, no further action is
       required on this issue."




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                               Page 9 of 21
7.      From the above it is evident that the Settlement Commission

has taken the view that the amount of Rs.6.00 crores as mentioned in

the said receipts were loans taken by respondent No.1 payable

@1.25% for the period of six months. The Settlement Commission

also took the view that, as the respondent No.1 has already offered

Rs.6.00 crores as additional income, no further action was required on

the issue.





8.      We have examined the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the Revenue as well as by the learned counsel for

respondent No.1. It is evident that the Revenue seeks to interpret the

said receipts in such a way as to indicate that the amount of Rs.6.00

crores had been received by way of interest whereas the learned

counsel for respondent No.1 has relied on the interpretation placed by

the Settlement Commission that the said sum was received by way of

loans. In our view, both interpretations are possible.


9.      In this backdrop, the question that arises is as to what degree, if

at all, can this Court interfere when two possible interpretations are

placed before it with regard to a document which is of vital

importance and when one of the interpretations has been accepted by



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                             Page 10 of 21
the Settlement Commission. In this context, Mr. Tripathi, the learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 placed reliance

on the following four decisions of the Supreme Court:-


      1. R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission
         & Another: (1989) 1 SCC 628;

      2. Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi & Ors.: 1993 Supp (3)
         SCC 38;

      3. Shriyans Prasad Jain v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.:
         1993 Supp (4) SCC 727; and

      4. Union of India & Others v. Ind-Swift Laboratories:
         (2011) 4 SCC 635.


10.     In R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad (supra) the Supreme Court

observed that in the exercise of power of judicial review of a decision

of the Settlement Commission, the Court is concerned with the

legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order.

The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the English decision in the

case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans: (1982) 1

WLR 1155. The Supreme Court observed that judicial review is not

concerned with the decision but with the decision making process.




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                         Page 11 of 21
11.     In Jyotendrasinhji (supra) the Supreme Court placed reliance

on its decision in the case of R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad (supra)

and observed that the scope of enquiry, whether by the High Court

under Article 226 or by the Supreme Court under Article 136 remains

the same and the question to be examined is whether the order of the

Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so,

has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from the ground of bias,

fraud and malice, which of course, constitute a separate and

independent category. The Supreme Court was concerned with the

question of interpretation which had been placed by the Commission

in respect of trust deeds which were the subject matter before the

Settlement Commission.       The Supreme Court observed that the

Commission had interpreted the trust deeds in a particular manner and

even if the interpretation placed by the Commission on the said deeds

was not correct, it would not be a ground for interference since a

wrong interpretation cannot be regarded as a violation of the

provisions of the Income Tax Act. The exact words used by the

Supreme Court were as under:


       "16. It is true that the finality clause contained in
       Section 245-I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                           Page 12 of 21
       the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this
       Court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case
       may be. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of this
       Court in the appeal preferred directly in this Court is any
       different than what it would be if the assessee had first
       approached the High Court under Article 226 and then
       come up in appeal to this Court under Article 136. A party
       does not and cannot gain any advantage by approaching
       this Court directly under Article 136, instead of
       approaching the High Court under Article 226. This is not
       a limitation inherent in Article 136; it is a limitation which
       this Court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of
       the function performed by the Commission and keeping in
       view the principles of judicial review. Maybe, there is also
       some force in what Dr Gauri Shankar says viz., that the
       order of the Commission is in the nature of a package deal
       and that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, to
       dissect its order and that the assessee should not be
       permitted to accept what is favourable to him and reject
       what is not. According to learned counsel, the
       Commission is not even required or obligated to pass a
       reasoned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is
       open to the Commission to accept an amount of tax by
       way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which
       the said amount shall be paid. It may condone the defaults
       and lapses on the part of the assessee and may waive
       interest, penalties or prosecution, where it thinks
       appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult to predicate the
       reasons and considerations which induce the Commission
       to make a particular order, unless of course the
       Commission itself chooses to give reasons for its order.
       Even if it gives reasons in a given case, the scope of
       enquiry in the appeal remains the same as indicated above
       viz., whether it is contrary to any of the provisions of the
       Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle
       of natural justice (audi alteram partem) has been
       incorporated in Section 245-D itself. The sole overall
       limitation upon the Commission thus appears to be that it



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                              Page 13 of 21
       should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
       The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under
       Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the
       same -- whether the order of the Commission is contrary
       to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it
       prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of
       bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a
       separate and independent category. Reference in this
       behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in R.B.
       Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatechand Nursing Das v.
       Settlement Commission (IT and WT) [(1989) 1 SCC 628 :
       1989 SCC (Tax) 124 : (1989) 176 ITR 169] which too was
       an appeal against the orders of the Settlement
       Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., speaking for the
       Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed
       that in such a case this Court is "concerned with the
       legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of
       the order". The learned Judge added "judicial review is
       concerned not with the decision but with the decision-
       making process". Reliance was placed upon the decision
       of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W.
       Police v. Evans [(1982) 1 WLR 1155 : (1982) 3 All ER
       141] . Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was
       equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is
       directed against the orders of the Settlement Commission.
       For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the
       only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these
       appeals is that the order of the Commission is contrary to
       the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has
       prejudiced the appellant. The main controversy in these
       appeals relates to the interpretation of the settlement deeds
       -- though it is true, some contentions of law are also
       raised. The Commission has interpreted the trust deeds in
       a particular manner. Even if the interpretation placed by
       the Commission on the said deeds is not correct, it would
       not be a ground for interference in these appeals, since a
       wrong interpretation of a deed of trust cannot be a
       violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                             Page 14 of 21
       equally clear that the interpretation placed upon the said
       deeds by the Commission does not bind the authorities
       under the Act in proceedings relating to other assessment
       years.

       17. In view of the above, though it is not necessary,
       strictly speaking, to go into the correctness of the
       interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the
       Commission, and it is enough if we confine ourselves to
       the question whether the order of the Commission is
       contrary to the provisions of the Act, we propose to, for
       the sake of completeness, examine also whether the order
       of the Commission is vitiated by any such wrong
       interpretation?"
                                              (underlining added)

12.     The next decision which was relied upon by Mr. Tripathi was

that of Shriyans Prasad Jain (supra) wherein the Supreme Court

again placed reliance on R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad (supra) and

Jyotendrasinhji (supra) and observed as under:-


       "19. Mr Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in
       submitting that in this appeal this Court would not go into
       questions of the fact or review the findings of fact
       recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this Court
       in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993 Supp (3) SCC
       389: (1993) 201 ITR 611] this Court can interfere with the
       Commission's order only if it is found to be "contrary to
       any of the provisions of the Act". To the same effect is the
       earlier decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga
       Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement
       Commission [(1989) 1 SCC 628 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 124 :
       (1989) 176 ITR 169] ."
                                               (underlining added)



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                           Page 15 of 21
13.     It is apparent that the power of interference under Article 226 is

limited.     It is evident that this Court under Article 226 can only

interfere with the Settlement Commission if it is found to be contrary

to the provisions of the Act and that even if the Court disagrees with

an interpretation placed by the Settlement Commission on a document,

it cannot substitute its view in place of that of the Settlement

Commission unless and until the interpretation given by the

Settlement Commission is clearly arbitrary and perverse.


14.     The last decision relied upon by Mr. Tripathi was that of Union

of India & Others v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited (supra) in which

the Supreme Court observed as under:-

       "22. An order passed by the Settlement Commission could
       be interfered with only if the said order is found to be
       contrary to any provisions of the Act. So far as the
       findings of fact recorded by the Commission or question
       of facts are concerned, the same is not open for
       examination either by the High Court or by the Supreme
       Court. In the present case the order of the Settlement
       Commission clearly indicates that the said order,
       particularly, with regard to the imposition of simple
       interest @ 10% per annum was passed in accordance with
       the provisions of Rule 14 but the High Court wrongly
       interpreted the said Rule and thereby arrived at an
       erroneous finding. So far as the second issue with respect
       to interest on Rs. 50 lakhs is concerned, the same being a
       factual issue should not have been gone into by the High



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                            Page 16 of 21
       Court exercising the writ jurisdiction and the High Court
       should not have substituted its own opinion against the
       opinion of the Settlement Commission when the same was
       not challenged on merits."
                                              (underlining added)

15.     From the above it is evident that the Supreme Court observed

that the High Court ought not to gone into a factual issue while

exercising writ jurisdiction and should not have substituted its opinion

against the opinion of the Settlement Commission. From all these

decisions it is abundantly clear that the scope of review under Article

226 of the Constitution insofar as an order passed by the Settlement

Commission under Section 245 D (4) of the Income Tax Act is

concerned, is a very limited one.        This Court certainly cannot

substitute its view in place of the Settlement Commission particularly

on point of interpretation of a particular document. Interference can

only be made if there is a fault in the decision making process and not

with the decision itself. Even if this Court feels that it would have

arrived at a different decision, it cannot interfere with the conclusion

arrived at by the Settlement Commission because this Court does not

sit in appeal over the decision of the Settlement Commission.




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                          Page 17 of 21
16.     In this context, it is to be seen that the only point urged by the

learned counsel for the Revenue is that the interpretation placed on the

receipts was erroneous. The interpretation which has been placed by

the Settlement Commission on the documents in question, first of all,

results in a finding of fact which, as we have seen, cannot be

interfered with. And, secondly, the interpretation is not so outlandish

to be categorized as arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference.

We make it clear that the interpretation sought to be placed by the

Revenue may be a possible interpretation but, so, too, would be the

interpretation placed by the Settlement Commission which has also

been espoused by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. In such a

situation no interference with the Settlement Commission's order is

warranted.


17.     Mr. Sahni, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue,

referred to a decision of this Court in Omaxe Limited & Another v.

Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, WP (C) 1451/2013, decided on

15.04.2014. In particular, he placed reliance on the observations of a

Division Bench of this Court in para 16 thereof which deals with the

issue of misrepresentation which, according to the said decision,



W.P.(C)1208/2013                                            Page 18 of 21
would mean failure to disclose material or facts which are germane

and relevant. We do not see as to how that decision would advance

the cause of the Revenue inasmuch as there are no foundational facts

in the present case to establish misrepresentation on the part of

respondent No.1. In this context, it may be pointed out that the case of

the Revenue that there was misrepresentation or that the respondent

No.1 had not given a full and true disclosure is based on an

interpretation of the said receipts.   Its case is that since the said

receipts were of the amounts representing interest and not of the

principal amount, the respondent No.1 had not disclosed the principal

amount and thereby had indulged in suppression and non-disclosure.

The question of misrepresentation or suppression or concealment is

premised on the interpretation that the receipts were of amounts

representing interest payments and not of the loans taken by

respondent No.1. That interpretation has not been accepted by the

Settlement Commission and therefore the entire foundation of the

argument that the respondent No.1 had indulged in misrepresentation

and not made a full and true disclosure falls to the ground.




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                           Page 19 of 21
18.     Lastly, Mr. Sahni submitted that although it had not been

specifically raised in the writ petition that the respondent No.1 had not

submitted information as required by the assessing officer at the time

of assessment proceedings, he referred to the statement of facts (SOF)

and the Rule 9 report submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax

and in particular to serial No.9 thereof wherein this aspect has been

mentioned. It has been pointed out that the Commissioner of Income

Tax had referred to various questionnaires issued by the assessing

officer to the respondent No.1 during the assessment proceeding and

that the Commissioner of Income Tax had stated that the respondent

had not submitted information as asked for in such questionnaires.

The response of the respondent No.1 is also indicated and as per the

respondent No.1 he had appended copies of the replies to all the

questionnaires raised by the assessing officer. In this context, we may

also note the submission of the respondent No. 1 before the Settlement

Commission, which we have already reproduced above, to the effect

that the Department had the option to make necessary enquiries from

the broker Mr. Suresh Bansal, whose address had already been given

and, in case any misrepresentation of facts was found it could request




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                           Page 20 of 21
the Commissioner to make the settlement void. In the wake of this

submission, there was no contrary finding or contrary argument raised

before the Settlement Commissioner on behalf of the Revenue.

Consequently, the submission of Mr. Sahni on this aspect of the matter

is also not tenable. In any event, it is not sufficient to warrant any

interference with the orders of the Settlement Commission.


19.     In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                   BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



                                      SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

MAY 16, 2014
ns




W.P.(C)1208/2013                                         Page 21 of 21

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions