Sri. Umed C.mehta v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Sathguru Complex, 640, Anna Salai, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHW.P.No.27098 of 2009 Sri. Umed C.Mehta...PetitionerVs 1. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Sathguru Complex, 640, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600035. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600034....Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, tocall for the records pertaining to the miscellaneous petitionfiled on 05.11.2009 in Settlement Application No. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT on the file of the Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench, Chennai - 600035, the first respondent hereinand quash the order passed therein dated 19.11.2009 For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.JayakumarFor Respondents: Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSCO R D E R When the petitioner had filed a Settlement Application No.TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT before the Income Tax Settlement Commission,who is the 1[st] respondent herein, he had stated that theundisclosed income admitted in the Settlement Application was acommission earned from accommodation transaction withMr.Parasmal Jain of M/s.Kawarlal Group. This explanation wasdisbelieved and the Settlement Application came to be rejectedon 23.10.2009. As against the rejection order of the 1[st]respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. After the order of the Settlement Commission, thepetitioner herein had filed a miscellaneous petition to expungecertain paragraphs in the main order dated 23.10.2009, whichcame to be rejected. This rejection is under challenge in thepresent writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds in thewrit petition, the learned counsel would submit that theaforesaid Mr.Parasmal Jain, during the pendency of the writpetition, had filed a Settlement Application before the IncomeTaxSettlementCommissioninSettlementApplicationNo.TN/CN51/2014-15/24-30/IT, wherein the very same incomeadmitted by Umed C.Mehta has been dealt with in that proceedingsand the application came to be disposed of. In view of the orderpassed by the Settlement Commission in the case of ParasmalJain, the respondents cannot tax the petitioner herein on thesame transaction, which would result in double taxation. Hence,he would submit that the order of the Settlement Commissionpassed in the case of the petitioner herein requires to be re-visited. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents submitted that the proceedings pertaining to thepetitioner herein before the Settlement Commission are in thenature of admonition and discretionary proceedings and thereforethe findings that the income offered in one case, cannot beautomatically applied and deducted in other cases, even thoughthe transactions are one and the same and that the partiesapproaching the Commission should independently satisfy theCommission on all other criteria mandated under the provisionsof the Income Tax Act. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel wouldobject to the petitioner counsel's request for remand 5. The order of the Settlement Commission, in the case ofParasmal Jain, was pursuant to the orders of the SettlementCommission in the case of the petitioner herein. It is not indispute that the transactions pertaining to the undisclosedincome of the petitioner herein is also the subject matter ofthe Settlement Application in the case of Parasmal Jain. If thatbeing so, there is a possibility that such a subsequentconsideration by the Settlement Commission could be deemed asdouble taxation, in case the order dated 23.10.2009 passed bythe Settlement Commission in the case of the petitioner herein,is upheld. 5. The order of the Settlement Commission, in the case ofParasmal Jain, was pursuant to the orders of the SettlementCommission in the case of the petitioner herein. It is not indispute that the transactions pertaining to the undisclosedincome of the petitioner herein is also the subject matter ofthe Settlement Application in the case of Parasmal Jain. If thatbeing so, there is a possibility that such a subsequentconsideration by the Settlement Commission could be deemed asdouble taxation, in case the order dated 23.10.2009 passed bythe Settlement Commission in the case of the petitioner herein,is upheld. 6. It is also stated that the order passed in the case ofParasmal Jain by the Settlement Commission has become final.While that being so, if the objections of the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents is to be accepted, the possibilityof double taxation for one transaction may occur. As such, thisCourt is of the view that the issue in the case of thepetitioner herein could be reconsidered, in the light of thesubsequent development through the orders passed by theSettlement Commission in the case of Parasmal Jain.Consequently, I deem it proper to refrain from addressing anyother grounds raised by the petitioner, challenging the impugned proceedings in this writ petition and that any further decisioncould await, after final orders are passed by the SettlementCommission on remand. 7. It would be relevant to point out herein that when thepetitioner herein had challenged the order of the SettlementCommission dated 23.10.2009 passed in his Settlement ApplicationNo. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT, before this Court in W.P.No.23631 of2009, this Court, by an order dated 09.08.2019, had set asidethe order of the 1[st] respondent herein dated 23.10.2009 andremanded the matter back for fresh consideration. 8. In view of the above, it would not be appropriate tointerfere with the present impugned notice at this stage, but,it would be appropriate to await the decision of the SettlementCommission, after remand, in the case of Umed C.Mehta. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-V)//True Copy//Sub Assistant Registrar hvkTo1. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Sathguru Complex, 640, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600035. 2. Commissioner of Income Tax-VII, 121, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034. +1cc to Mr.V.S.Jayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 68675+1cc to Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, Advocate, S.R.No. 69423 GJ II(CO)GN(10/10/2019)