Settlement of cases – Section 245D of ITA, 1961 – Proceedings for settlement are not adjudicatory proceedings – Assessee disputing liability but offering to pay additional tax – No non-disclosure of full and true facts – Order of Settlement Commission accepting offer of assessee is valid

8. Principal CIT vs.
Shreyansh Corporation

[2020] 421 ITR 153 (Guj.)

Date of order: 7^th
October, 2019

A.Y.: 2004-05

Settlement of cases – Section
245D of ITA, 1961 – Proceedings for settlement are not adjudicatory proceedings
– Assessee disputing liability but offering to pay additional tax – No
non-disclosure of full and true facts – Order of Settlement Commission accepting
offer of assessee is valid

On an application for settlement
after considering the issues put forth by the Principal Commissioner in the
report u/r 9 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and the rejoinders of the assessees
and the documents submitted along with the statement of facts and the
submissions of the respective parties, the Settlement Commission noted that
insofar as the addition to partner’s capital was concerned, the assessees had
submitted affidavits made by M and the two assessees and it was further stated
that if at any stage these affidavits were found to be false, it may be treated
as a misrepresentation of facts u/s 245D(6) of the Act and the consequences as
u/s 245D(7) of the Act may follow in the case of the two assessees. The
Settlement Commission further noted that the assessees had offered additional
income for bringing quietus to certain issues in the spirit of a
settlement.

Taking into account all the facts
and discussions on record, the Settlement Commission was of the view that the additional
income offered during the section 245D(4) proceedings by the applicant’s letter
dated 8^th June, 2018 over the additional income disclosed in the
settlement applications could be accepted with reference to the income
disclosed in the settlement applications. It further noted that the
Commissioner and the A.O. also did not make any further submissions. The
Settlement Commission accordingly settled the cases of the assessees on the
terms and conditions set out in the order.

The Principal Commissioner filed
writ petitions and challenged the order of the Settlement Commission. The
Gujarat High Court dismissed the petitions and held as under:

‘i)    The proceedings before the Settlement Commission are in the
nature of settlement between the parties and are not strictly speaking
adjudicatory proceedings. On a perusal of the order passed by the Settlement
Commission it was abundantly clear that the assessees had not accepted the
liability of 5% of trading expenses but in the spirit of settlement offered to
pay the amount computed by the A.O. with a view to bring quietus to the
matter and buy peace of mind. The offer to pay such amounts in addition to the
amounts disclosed in the applications u/s 245C of the Act could not be said to
be disclosure of any further amounts under that section as they had been
offered only to bring about a settlement.

ii)    The fact that the assessees had offered to pay such amounts, the
liability whereto they had not accepted, could not be termed as non-disclosure
of full and true facts in the applications u/s 245C of the Act.