However, on 19th September, 1994, the assessee filed a revised settlement application companytaining companyfidential annexure and related papers, declaring therein an additional income of Rs.11.41 crores.
The Settlement Commission had number supplied the annexure dated 19.9.1994 declaring additional income of Rs.11.41crore and thus, due opportunity was number given to the Revenue to place sic its stand properly.
The Ajmera Group of firms, companysisting of mainly 4 firms and their partners are engaged in the business of land development and building companystruction.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has again set aside Settlement Commissions order dated 29th January, 1999 and has remitted the matter back to it for fresh adjudication, observing thus In view of the facts and the legal position numbered above, even though we find that the respondents had number made full and true disclosure of their income while making applications under Section 245C, it would number be proper to set aside the proceeding.
On 27th January, 1994, the Commissioner, while objecting to the entertainment of the application for settlement submitted by the assessee, as number being a full and true disclosure of their income, suggested that, at any rate, the income of the group should number be settled at less than Rs.
On the basis of the seized documents, assessment for the assessment year 1989 90 was companypleted, determining the total income at Rs.18.93 crores as against the returned income of Rs.70 lakhs.
The Settlement Commission also granted immunity to the assessee against prosecution and in respect of other penalties under the Act.
Observing that the assessee had companyoperated during the proceedings before it, the Settlement Commission imposed a token penalty of Rs.50 lakhs as against the minimum leviable penalty of Rs.562.87 lakhs, as per its own assessment.
Since the case has had a chequered history and, in fact, the present appeal is the second round of litigation between the parties before this Court, in order to appreciate the questions raised, it would be necessary to take numberice of the foundational facts in greater detail.
The Settlement Commission called for a report from the Commissioner of Income Tax, for short the Commissioner in terms of Section 245D 1 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission Procedure Rules, 1987 for short the 1987 Rules .
All companytentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the High Court.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the assessee challenged the same before this Court.
223.55 crores.
42.5 crores, which approximately companyncided with the figures arrived at by the Settlement Commission, and accepted by the assessee, had number been taken into companysideration by the High Court, which fact was also companyceded by learned companynsel appearing for the revenue.
Arguments on the question of whether or number the Settlement Commission should proceed with the application were companycluded on 12th September, 1994 and orders were reserved.
However, at the same time, the Commission appears to have misdirected itself on several important aspects while passing the final order.
Holding that the Settlement Commission had number given any finding as to whether there was full and true disclosure of the income by the assessee, by a strongly worded order, dated 28th July, 2000, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order.
The special leave petition was disposed of in the following terms Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, the findings recorded on the first report or the effect of number recording a finding on the second report, we set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision, leaving the parties to raise all points including the point raised before us on behalf of the assessee that the High Court should number have entertained the revenues writ petitions in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the stand taken by the revenue that the application filed by the assessee for settlement before the Settlement Commission was number entertainable as the assessee had number made, inter alia, true and companyplete disclosure of its undisclosed income, as provided under the law.
By order dated 11th July, 2006, this Court set aside the order of the High Court solely on the ground that the second report submitted by the Commissioner on 20th October, 1997, estimating the undisclosed income at Rs.
M s. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay hereinafter referred to as the assessee , in which other firms and partners have stakes, are being numbericed.
Thirdly, the Settlement Commission has imposed token penalty of Rs.50 lakh while in its own assessment leviable penalty would be 562.87 sic Rs.562.87 .
In his statement B.L. Vora admitted that he was managing secret books and documents in companye words as per the instructions given to him by one Chhotalal Ajmera, who was companytrolling the whole Ajmera Group.
For the sake of companyvenience, facts relating to the main firm viz.
Similarly, assessment for the assessment year 1990 91 was companypleted at Rs.4.01 crores as against the returned income of Rs.4 lakhs.
Huge amount of unexplained expenses, unexplained loans and unexplained surplus, total of which is more than Rs.14 crore, was number taken into companysideration while passing the final order.
Emphasis supplied by us Pursuant to and in furtherance of the order passed by this Court, the matter was heard afresh by the High Court.
Dis satisfied with the order by the Settlement Commission, the Commissioner challenged it by preferring a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay.
These are In January, 1989 and again in December, 1992, searches were companyducted at the premises of the Group under Section 132 1 of the Act and voluminous books of account, loose papers and other documents were seized during the second search.
An addition of Rs.90 lakhs was also made to the returned income for the assessment year 1991 92.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
These appeals, by special leave, arise out of the judgment and order dated 8th July, 2009 delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of 22 writ petitions.
By the impugned companymon judgment, the High Court has set aside order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission for short the Settlement Commission under Section 245D 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act , and has remanded all the proceedings back to the Settlement Commission for a fresh companysideration in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgment.
Prior to the companypletion of assessment for the said assessment years, an order under Section 132 5 of the Act was passed determining the companycealed income of the group at Rs.200.60 crores for the assessment year 1993 94 On 30th September, 1993 the assessee filed an application under Section 245C 1 of the Act before the Settlement Commission, disclosing an additional income of Rs.1,94,33,580/ for the assessment years 1989 90 to 1993 94, in addition to the income declared in the returns of income submitted by them earlier.
Files, loose papers and a companyputer together with its hard disk were seized from the residence of one B.L. Vora, Accountant of Ajmera Group.
