Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1 Vs Laxman Das (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : IT(SS) nos.29 to 32 /D/2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/03/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Under section 245D of the Act, once the application is admitted, the assessee is required to pay the additional demand on the basis of income disclosed in the application within 35 days of the order of the Commission u/s 245D(1) and in case the demand is not paid within the time allowed interest at prescribed rate is chargeable under 245D(2C). There is no material before us nor there is anything to suggest that in the order of the Settlement Commission that the assessee did not comply with aforesaid order u/s 245D(1) of the Act.

Similarly, when the Settlement Commission passes final order under section 245D(4) of the Act, the tax payable in pursuance of such an order is required to be paid by the assessee within 35 days of the receipt of copy of the order and for failure to do so, the assessee is liable to pay interest at the prescribed rate under section 245D(6A). Thus the interest payable under sections 245D(2C) and 245D(6) are in different contexts and are levied independently. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) after analyzing the procedure laid down under the provisions of sec. 245D of the Act concluded that there being no scope for revising an application made under section 245C of the Act, charging of interest u/s 245D(2C) of the Act on the premise that the applicant revised the original application is against the letter and spirit of the provisions contained in S. 245C(1), & 245D of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also concluded that the process of settlement is the  outcome of detailed submission and arguments from both sides and accordingly , the additional income was finally estimated @ 6% of the undisclosed sales and consequently there is no case for charging of interest u/s 245D (2C) nor there is any such direction of the Settlement Commission. As pointed out earlier ,the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajmera Housing Corporation (supra) held that in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under section 245C(1) of the Act . Thus, the determination of income by the Settlement Commission is necessarily with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said section in the prescribed form. Moreover, in terms of provisions of sec.245I of the Act, every order of settlement passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D is conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order , save as otherwise provided in the Chapter XIXA, can be reopened in any proceeding under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.

 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI

IT(SS) nos.29 to 32 /D/2011

Block period:1-4-95 to 5-10-2001

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031