W.p.(C)/2168/2015 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii v. Murarilal Harish Chandra Jaiswal (P) Ltd. & Anr

$-56 & 57 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 2168/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II versusMURARILAL HARISH CHANDRA JAISWAL (P)LTD. & ANR. PetitionerRespondents +W.P.(C) 2169/2015COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-X PetitionerversusLATE SHRI HARISH CHAND JAISWAL & ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr Kamal Sawhney and Mr Sanjay Kumar forpetitionerMs Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr Advocate with MsVanshiya Shukla for respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER09.03.2015 % CM No. 3903/2015 in W.P.ICI 2168/2015 and CM No. 3904/2015 in W.P.tCl 2169/2015 The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(CI 2168/2015 and W.P.tCI 2169/2015 These petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax SettlementCommission dated 01.11.2013 and 19.12.2013. The main point urged by Mr KamalSawhney, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / revenue, is that noexplanation had been offered by the respondents / applicants / assessee with regard to thehuge amount of cash amounting to approximately 20.42 crores. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We have been taken through the orders passed by theIncome Tax Settlement Commission as also the earlier order passed by the Customs andCentral Excise Settlement Commission dated 15.02.2007. That order was the subject matter ultimately dismissed by this court on 17.09.2010. The cash which was seized from thepetitioners was, in the earlier round, permitted to be paid towards excise duty in respect ofclandestine removal of manufactured goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the use of the said cash of payment of excise duty did not absolve the respondent fromexplaining the source of the said cash. We find that in the application which was made by the respondents before the IncomeTax Settlement Commission, the explanation offered for the cash was that it represented therevenue generated out of unaccounted sales in respect of clandestine removal of chewingtobacco. That explanation has been accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Itwas sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had notmade a full and true disclosure but we find from the applications which were placed before usby the learned counsel for the respondents that this fact had been clearly disclosed in the saidapplications. We must point that this court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India does not sit in appeal over the order passed by the SettlementCommission and, therefore, we are not going into the merits of the matter. We see no reasonto interfere with the orders passed by the Settlement Commission. The writ petitions aredismissed. MARCH 09,2015 / SU AHMED, JVIBHU BAKHRU, J