51. Hitachi Power Europe GMBH vs. IT Settlement Commission [2020] 423 ITR
472 (Mad.) Date of order: 17th February, 2020 A.Ys.: 2015-16 to
2018-19
Settlement of cases – Chapter XIX-A of ITA, 1961 – Powers of Settlement
Commission – Application for settlement of case – Settlement Commission cannot
consider merits of case at that stage; A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19
In June, 2010, the National Thermal Power Corporation had invited bids
under international competitive bidding for the supply and installation of
eleven 660-megawatt steam generators at five locations in India. A bid was
successfully submitted by B, a company incorporated in India and engaged in
providing turnkey solutions for coal-based thermal power plants. B
sub-contracted a portion of the scope of work under three contracts to its
joint venture company, which in turn sub-contracted a portion thereof to the
assessee. One of the contentions raised by the assessee on the merits was that
the scope of work under each of the contracts was separate and distinct in all
respects including the delineation of the work itself, the modes of execution
of the contract and the payments therefor.
For this reason, the assessee took the stand that the income from offshore
supplies would not be liable to tax in India. For the A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19
the assessee filed returns of income offering to tax the income from onshore
supply and services only. While assessment proceedings were pending, the
assessee applied for settlement of the case. The Settlement Commission held
that the contract was composite and indivisible and hence the applicant, i. e.,
the assessee, had failed to make a full and true disclosure of income.
On a writ petition against the order, the Madras High Court held as under:
‘i) The scheme of Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to provide a
holistic resolution of issues that arise from an assessment in the case of an assessee that has approached the
Commission. The question of full and true disclosure and the discharge of tax
liability at all stages prior to final hearing should be seen only in the
context of the issues offered for settlement and the remittances of additional
tax thereupon. Issues decided by the Commission and the liability arising
therefrom will be payable only at the stage of such determination, which is the
stage of final hearing u/s 245D(4) of the Act.
ii) The assessee had just applied for settlement of the case. The Commission,
however, in considering the “validity” or otherwise of the application,
proceeded to delve into the merits of the matter even at that stage. The order
of the Settlement Commission was beyond the scope of section 245D(2C) having
been passed on the merits of the issue raised and set aside the same. This writ
petition is allowed.’
