We Find That The Facts Of The Present Case Are Covered By Thedecision Of This Court Passed Incwp Nos. 9251-2012Titled Ascommissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Gu v. M/S. C&Sconstructions And Others And Cwp

CWP-19467-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH IAL CWP-19467-2019 (O&M)Date of Decision : 30.9.2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram ..... Petitioner 3",'1' Income Tax Settlement Commission and another . Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL999* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK HARNARESH SINGH GILL999 Present ;Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Sr. Standing counselfor the petitioner.for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Vohra, Advocate withMr. Rohit Jain, Advocatefor the respondent no. 2.Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocatefor the respondent no. 2. 999 AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) inThis petition has been filed for quashing the order dated27.2.2019 passed by respondent No.l-Income Tax SettlementCommission under Section 245D (2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( forShort ‘the Act’) vide which the application filed by respondentNo.2/assessee under Section 245C of the Act for settlement was declaredto be not invalid. ?DBrief facts of the case are that notices under Section 153 A ofthe Act were issued to the assessee-respondent No.2. The assessee-respondent No.2 filed returns pursuant thereto. Thereafter, the assessee-respondent No.2 vide form 34BA intimated the Assessing officer ofhaving made an application before the respondent No.1-Commissionunder Section 245 C of the Act for settlement of his cases. The assessee- CWP-19467-2019 (O&M) respondent No.2 in its application under Section 245C stated to havemade disclosure of additional income of Rs.46,71,40,771/- and netadditional income of Rs. 29,80,45,000/- after claiming deduction underSection 80IA at Rs. 16,92,69,825/-. The respondent No.1-Commissionpassed an order under Section 245D (1) on 14.1.2019 allowing theapplication for settlement to be proceeded with. Subsequently, whenreports under Section 245D (2B) (1) were submitted by the petitioner tothe respondent No.l-Commission. The petitioner had raised objections tothe admission of the application filed by respondent No.2 and hadsubmitted that since respondent No.-2 had not given the complete andtrue disclosure of all the facts, such applications were narrated with aloutright rejection. The main submission in this behalf was_ thatrespondent No.2-namely M/s Gawar Constructions Ltd. was_ thaadditional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in theapplication did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs which is basic requirement as perSection 245(C) of the Act and that after claiming the benefit of SectionSOIA the tax liability of the respondent No.l reduces and rather itbecomes entitled to have claim of refund of Rs.53,88,03,810/- and MATcredit of Rs.24,00,53,666/-. This and other objections of the petitionerhave been discussed by the Settlement Commission, but were turneddown with the observation that the return filed under Section 153A of theAct by the assessee-respondent No.2 are valid returns and so the tax onthe additional income shows in the application before the SettlementCommission compared to income shows in the returns under Section153A of the Act is more than Rs.50 lakhs and that mere by making freshclaims in return under Section 153A, return itself would not become CWP-19467-2019 (O&M) invalid. 3,Accordingly, the objections of the petitioner to theadmissibility of the applications are turned down and the SettlementCommission has decided to proceed with the consideration of thoseapplications on merits. 4Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently arguedthat application itself was not maintainable. We find that the Tribunal hasnot taken any view about the maintainability of the application, at thisStage, 5We find that the facts of the present case are covered by thedecision of this Court passed inCWP Nos. 9251-2012titled asCommissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon vs. M/s. C&SConstructions and others and CWP No.9369-2012titled asCommissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon vs. M/s BhushanPower and SteelLtd.decided on 18.10.2012. CWP-19467-2019 (O&M) invalid. 3,Accordingly, the objections of the petitioner to theadmissibility of the applications are turned down and the SettlementCommission has decided to proceed with the consideration of thoseapplications on merits. 4Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently arguedthat application itself was not maintainable. We find that the Tribunal hasnot taken any view about the maintainability of the application, at thisStage, 5We find that the facts of the present case are covered by thedecision of this Court passed inCWP Nos. 9251-2012titled asCommissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon vs. M/s. C&SConstructions and others and CWP No.9369-2012titled asCommissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon vs. M/s BhushanPower and SteelLtd.decided on 18.10.2012. 4Learned counsel for the petitioner has accepted this fact. 7.Resultantly, the present petition stands disposed of in theSame terms as 1nCWP Nos. 9251-2017 and CWP No. 9369-2012. 9Since the main case has been disposed of, the pendingapplication if any, also stands disposed of, (AJAY TEWARIT) JUDGE 30.9.2019anuradha. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)JUDGE *Yes/No*Yes/No