M/S Kunal Calcium Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

CWP? No.9099 of 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9099 of 2013. Date of Decision: 19.05.2014 M/s Kunal Calcium Limited ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ... Respondents and others CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate withMr. Animesh Sharma, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocatefor the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an orderpassed on 2] December, 2012 passed by the Income Taxsettlement Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’) on anapplication for rectification of the order passed on 22[nd]June,2012. The Petitioner has claimed benefit of the amount of exciseduty of=80 lacs, in the rectification application which remainedunsuccessful. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissionin respect of three assessment years i.e. 2004-05, 2007-08 and2008-09. Considering the said request of the petitioner for CWP? No.9099 of 201 settlement, the Commission passed an order dated 22.6.2012applying gross profit rate on the un-disclosed income. Theassessment year in question is assessment year 2008-09 wherein,eross profit rate applied was 17.00% on the un-disclosed incomeot 403,/0,680/-. The income as per petitioner was =18,13,650/-whereas, the undisclosed income in the statement was412,877,52 The grievance of the petitioner is, while calculatingundisclosed income, he has not been given benefit of480,00,000 /which is the amount of excise duty paid during the financial year2007-08 relevant to the assessment years 2008-09. Therefore, therectification of the mistake in the order of the Commission wassought. The Commission found that in a petition for settlement,the petitioner has reflected total income returned asL18,13,6590in addition thereto, the petitioner has reflected undisclosed incomeaS|412,87,929. After noticing the said fact, the Commissionobserved as under:- “The above working of income calculated by theapplicant clearly indicates that the applicant hadworked out its undisclosed income at a figure ofr12,87,529/- and more importantly shown it asthe net figure after taking into account thepayment of Excise duty which was amounting tor6O lakhs. Therefore as per the applicants owncalculation, the undisclosed income arising to itwas a sum of<92,87,529/- |{|12,87,929+<60,00, 000).As against this figure ofC12,87,929 the Commission estimated theincome of the applicant for the assessment year2008-09 at the sum of<03,/0,680/. Thus, therewas an addition ofr40,853,151. The plea of the applicant is that once this addition was made, byan application of G.P rate then it should beallowed a deduction under Section 43B of theamount ofVO&O lakhs The plea of the applicant, tf accepted,would mean that the income of the applicant forthe assessment year 2008-2009 would be settledat a figure which is lower by a399,16,849, thathe figure himself declared by the applicant inthe SOF. After considering the facts discussedabove, we are of the view that there is no mistakeapparentfrom records on this issue. ” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and findthat the order of the Commission does not suffer from any patentillegality, which may warrant any interference in the exercise ofthe writ jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has not reflected sum ofL80,00,000/- as amount of excise duty paid during theassessment year 2008-09 in the statement of the case filed beforethe Commission. The Commission has noticed that if suchamount would have been disclosed, the income would be lowerthan the income declared by the petitioner in his statement offacts. It appears that by not reflecting the disclosed income forpayment of excise duty, the petitioner wishes to take benefit ofpayment of excise duty in the rectification application. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and findthat the order of the Commission does not suffer from any patentillegality, which may warrant any interference in the exercise ofthe writ jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner has not reflected sum ofL80,00,000/- as amount of excise duty paid during theassessment year 2008-09 in the statement of the case filed beforethe Commission. The Commission has noticed that if suchamount would have been disclosed, the income would be lowerthan the income declared by the petitioner in his statement offacts. It appears that by not reflecting the disclosed income forpayment of excise duty, the petitioner wishes to take benefit ofpayment of excise duty in the rectification application. The Commission is the authority competent to examinethe extent of undisclosed income. The Commission has framed anopinion that the benefit of the amount of the excise duty can notbe given to the petitioner as it would negate even the undisclosed CWP? No.9099 of 201 income shown in the statement of facts. Such opinion is possiblefinding as per the facts noticed by the Commission. In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the orderpassed by the Commission, which may warrant any interferenceby this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA)JUDGE 19.05.2014aarti (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE