PCIT Vs Navinchandra Dalpatlal Mehta & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that voluntary addition offered during hearing of the application u/s. 245D(4) cannot be equated with revision of application of disclosure made u/s. 245C(1) and hence no interference is called in the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission.
Facts- The search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the assessee – respondent No.1 on 17.08.2016. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized pertaining to the unaccounted income of the assessee – respondent No.1 and assessment proceeding u/s. 153A of the Act was initiated.
During pendency of the assessment proceedings, respondent No.1 filed application u/s. 245C(1) before the Income Tax Settlement Commission offering additional income of Rs.17 Crores for the assessment years from 2011-12 to 2017-18.
The Settlement Commission admitted the application filed by respondent No.1. The application filed by respondent No.1 – assessee was admitted u/s. 245D(1) vide order dated 02.01.2019 and vide order dated 20.02.2019 passed u/s. 245D(2C) of the Act, the application of the assessee was treated as “not invalid”. The Settlement Commission passed the impugned order on 29.01.2021 accepting the settlement amount of Rs.17.25 Crores offered by the assessee u/s. 245D(4) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order by this petition.
