Case Law Details
After passing of order by Settlement Commission, no power vests in Assessing Authority or any other authority to issue notice in r/o period and income covered under order of Settlement Commission.
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
Section 245F(4),reference of which has been made in the order of Settlement Commission, provides that in the absence of any express direction by the Settlement Commission to the contrary, nothing in Chapter XIXA shall affect the operation of the provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to any matters other than those before the Settlement Commission. The notice has been issued in purported exercise of power under Section 245D(4),already reproduced above. Under sub-section (4)of Section 45D power has been conferred on the Settlement Commission to pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application as also any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the Commissioner under sub-section (1)or sub-section (3) of Section 245D.Secondly, it is not the case of the department that the ground on which the notice has been to the petitioner was a matter which was not referred in the report of the Commissioner under sub-section (1)or sub- section (3)of Section 245D.
The aforesaid section should be read conjointly with section 245 I of the Act which attaches finality and conclusiveness to every order of settlement. Legislative intent is loud and clear. The order passed by the Settlement Commission has been treated to be conclusive. It can be recalled only under the circumstance if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that the order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, as per sub-section (6)of Section 45D of the Act. On a conjoint reading of sub-sections (4)and (6)of Section 45D and Sections 245F(4) and 245 I, it would appear that except in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the order passed by the Settlement Commission is final and conclusive and binding on all the parties. This appears to be so because the Settlement Commission was constituted to reduce the life span of litigation and to provide speedy remedy to an assessee who voluntarily discloses his/her undisclosed income for hassle free settlement of the case. The very use of the words “settlement of cases” are indicative of the fact that the provision has been made to settle the case in its entirety for ever and leave no issue open for subsequent decision.
The facts found and documents seized in search operation were matters which relate to the settlement of undisclosed income of the petitioner and therefore, were subject matter of consideration of the Settlement Commission. It cannot be said that such matters are matters other than those before the Settlement Commission. Settlement Commission is required to decide the dispute by passing such order as it thinks fit “on the matters covered by the application and any matter relating to the case not covered by the application but referred to in the report of the Commissioner under subsection (1) or subsection (3)”. It follows that the Settlement Commission is empowered to pass such order as it may think fit. The subject matter of the order is-(1) the matters covered by an application and (2) any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the Commissioner under sub- section (1)or sub-section (3).Thus, the contention of the department that the investment in bonds etc. was not subject matter of the order of Settlement Commission is not correct. Investment in bonds etc. and paper no.40,on which the assessment is sought to be completed by the assessing officer by giving impugned notice, were before the Settlement Commission by implication of law. The investment in bonds and security etc. was in the knowledge of the department as also the document no.40 recovered during the search operation and if they were not pressed in service by the department before the Settlement Commission, the department should thank itself. It is no longer open to the department to urge that it can assess the income of the petitioner on the basis of the investment in bonds etc and the document no.40.It shall be deemed that the Settlement Commission has taken into consideration the above matters also.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
