Kesaria Marketing Private Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-II(4), Chennai / The Income-tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle-II(4) (i/c), Chennai / Income-tax Settlement Commission, Chennai
[Citation -2019-LL-0809-170]
| Citation | 2019-LL-0809-170 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Kesaria Marketing Private Ltd. |
| Respondent Name | Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-II(4), Chennai / The Income-tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle-II(4) (i/c), Chennai / Income-tax Settlement Commission, Chennai |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF MADRAS |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 09/08/2019 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | settlement application • settlement commission • undisclosed income • commission earned • double taxation |
| Bot Summary: | For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC ORDER When Sri.Umed C.Mehta had filed a Settlement Application No. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, who is the 3rd respondent herein, he had stated that the undisclosed income admitted in the Settlement Application was a commission earned from accommodation transaction with Mr.Parasmal Jain of M/s.Kawarlal Group. In consequence to the rejection of the Settlement Application of Mr.Umed C.Mehta, the petitioner herein has been served with an impugned order under Section 281-B of the Income Tax Act, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds in the writ petition, the learned counsel would submit that the aforesaid Mr.Parasmal Jain, during the pendency of the writ petition, had filed a Settlement Application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in Settlement Application No.TN/CN51/2014-15/24-30/IT, wherein the very same income admitted by Mr.Umed C.Mehta has been dealt with in that proceedings and the application came to be disposed of. In view of the orders passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Parasmal Jain, the respondents cannot tax the petitioner herein on the same transaction, which would result in double taxation. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings pertaining to Umed C.Mehta before the Settlement Commission are in the nature of admonition and discretionary proceedings and therefore the findings that the income offered in one case, cannot be automatically applied and deducted in other cases, even though the transactions are one and the same and that the parties approaching the Commission should independently satisfy the Commission on all other criteria mandated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The order of the Settlement Commission, in the case of Parasmal Jain, was pursuant to the orders of the Settlement Commission in the case of Umed C.Mehta. 27087 of 2009 grounds raised by the petitioner, challenging the impugned proceedings in this writ petition and that any further decision could await, after final orders are passed by the Settlement Commission on remand. |