Arun Mammen Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that post settlement of disputed under Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act, the continuance of the proceedings u/s. 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 cannot be allowed to continue. Thus, writ allowed.
Facts- These Writ Petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners for a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the Impugned Notice dated 02.2018 issued u/s. 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and all further Consequential Notices dated 03.03.2020, 16.10.2020 and 26.12.2020 and for a Writ of Prohibition, to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further with the aforesaid notices issued to the respective petitioners.
The respective petitioners opted to settle the dispute before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) by filing Statement of Facts on 10.07.2015. This was about few days after the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 came into force with effect from 01.07.2015.
By an order dated 30.06.2015, the Settlement Commission rejected the applications. Under these circumstances, the respective petitioners once again filed fresh applications on 10.07.2015 before the Settlement Commission which were again rejected by the Settlement Commission on 15.07.2015 on the ground that the income which are liable to tax under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 cannot be settled under Chapter XIX-A (19-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
