Umed C. Mehta v. Income-tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai / Commissioner of Income-tax-VII, Chennai
[Citation -2019-LL-0809-185]
Citation | 2019-LL-0809-185 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | Umed C. Mehta |
Respondent Name | Income-tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai / Commissioner of Income-tax-VII, 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: | Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the miscellaneous petition filed 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 herein and quash the order passed therein dated 19.11.2009 For Petitioner : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Narayanasamy, SSC 1/6 W.P.No. 27098 of 2009 ORDER When the petitioner had filed a Settlement Application No. TN/CN7/2009-10/2/IT before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, who is the 1st 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. After the order of the Settlement Commission, the petitioner herein had filed a miscellaneous petition to expunge certain paragraphs in the main order dated 23.10.2009, which came to be rejected. 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 Umed C.Mehta has been dealt with in that proceedings and the application came to be disposed of. 27098 of 2009 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 the petitioner herein 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 the petitioner herein. |