The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central) Pune v. Prabhu And Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10166 OF 2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) Pune ..Appellant.v/s.Pravinkumar V. Prabhu and Anr... Respondents. Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant.Mr. Vishwajeet S. Kapse, for the Respondent No.1. P.C:- CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE : 2[nd] August, 2018. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiachallenges the order dated 6.3.2017 passed by the Income TaxSettlement Commission (Commission) under Section 245D-4 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). By the impugned order dated 6.3.2017, theCommission settled the tax dispute of the petitioner for Assessment Years2008-09 to 2013-14. 2 The grievance of the Petitioner-Revenue as urged by Mr. Walve tothe impugned order dated 6.3.2017 of the Commission settling thedispute for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14 are on account of thefollowing: (a)Disclosure of additional income at the stage of245D(4) of the Act evidences the fact that there was failure to make a true and full disclosure in its application forsettlement. Thus, making the Settlement bad.This as theapplication itself does not satisfy the mandatoryrequirement of Section 245C of the Act; (b)Expenses shown as labour charges should not havebeen accepted . This, particularly after the Commissionhaving recorded in the impugned order that it raisessuspicion. Thus, the impugned order should not haveaccepted explanation of the Respondent in respect of thelabour charges claimed; and ( c )An amount of Rs.25 Lakhs which were receivable fromone Mr. M.N.Navale, the President of Sinhgad TechnicalInstitute Society for contractual services was accepted. Thiseven when there is nothing on record that any services wererendered to Mr. M.N. Navale. Thus, it is alleged that theimpugned order is perverse. 3It is a settled position in law that in absence of appellateremedy provided under the statute, a Writ Court cannot in exercise of itsextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiabe converted into an Appeal Court as held by the Supreme Court inAppropriate Authority and Anr. v. Smt. Sudha Patil and Anr.235 ITR118. Therefore where two views are possible, then the Court will notsubstitute its view to that of the authority. Moreover, it is also settledposition in law as held by the Supreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji v.S.I.Tripathi and Others1993 Supplementary (3) SCC 389, that in itsextraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court can only interfere with the orders of the Commission it it is without jurisdiction or is contrary to theprovisions of the Act. The Apex Court held that the Court whileexamining the order of the Settlement Commission is concerned morewith the legality of the procedure followed, i.e. decision making processthen with the merits of the decisions per-se. Therefore, if the view onfacts taken by the Commission is a possible view, then the Court wouldnot interfere with the orders passed by the Commission. 4Keeping the above parameters in mind, we examine thegrievance of the petitioner to the impugned order of the Commission. orders of the Commission it it is without jurisdiction or is contrary to theprovisions of the Act. The Apex Court held that the Court whileexamining the order of the Settlement Commission is concerned morewith the legality of the procedure followed, i.e. decision making processthen with the merits of the decisions per-se. Therefore, if the view onfacts taken by the Commission is a possible view, then the Court wouldnot interfere with the orders passed by the Commission. 4Keeping the above parameters in mind, we examine thegrievance of the petitioner to the impugned order of the Commission. 5So far as the first submission regarding disclosure ofadditional income of Rs.18.75 Lakhs each for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 at the stage of Section 245D(4) of the Act is concerned,we find that the impugned order of the Commission has independentlycome to a finding that there is full and true disclosure in the applicationmade by the Respondent for settlement to the Commission. It in factrecords “........ accordingly, proceed to settle the undisclosed income on theapplicant after accepting the voluntary offer of Rs.18,75,000/- each for theassessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively, suo motu offer in anyway does not dilute the character of full disclosure, and affect the manner ofearning the sane.” This additional offer made by the Respondent was onfacts found by the Commission does not in any manner dilute therequirement of full, true and complete disclosure in the application forsettlement on part of Respondent No.6. This finding of the Commissionhas not been shown to be perverse in any manner. In the context of thefinding of the Commission merely because the Applicant has offered some ShambhaviNileshShivganDigitally signed byShambhavi NileshShivganDate: 2018.08.0811:06:01 +0530 further amount as income voluntarily at the stage of 245D(4) of the Act,would not ipso-facto lead to a conclusion that there was failure to fullyand truly disclose the income in its application for settlement. This moveso when the Commission itself records a finding that the disclosure madein the application for settlement is true and full, notwithstanding theoffering of further income by the Respondent. 6So far the second and third submission viz. with regard tolabour charges and receivables from Mr. M.N. Navale. We find from theimpugned order of the Commission, that the explanation offered by theRespondent No.6 was accepted on consideration of the submissions madeby the parties and the available material on record. The view taken by theCommission on the aforesaid two issues have not been shown to beperverse in any manner. As pointed out above, where the view taken bythe Commission is a possible view then interference under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India in our extraordinary jurisdiction is notwarranted. 7In the above view, the Petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.)