Miscellaneous

G.Krishnaswamy Thevar
S.A.No. 21/5/322/88/IT dt. 29.01.1991

Order dated 11.03.1991
ITSC Chennai               

The applicant filed a miscellaneous petition for the release of jewellery seized during search of his premises. The CIT had informed him that the jewellery could be released only by an order u/s 132(11) of the Act and that only ITSC could pass such an order.

The Bench referred to section 245F(2) and the meaning of term "case" u/s 245A(b). Accordingly it was decided that the ITSC had necessary and incidental powers to take action as were connected with the 'case' including computation of tax interest penalty and liability for prosecution etc. The Commission did not have power to perform any functions in respect of other related matters. Reference was made to section 245F(4) wherein it is clarified that nothing in Chapter XIX-B would affect the operation of provisions of ITA in so-far-as they related to any matters other than those before the Settlement Commission.

[Top l Back]

Late Shri Nicolas Mathew Desouza & Others
S.A. No. 5/T/005/98-99/IT

ITSC Mumbai              
Order dated 08.04.1999

In this case the applicant sought withdrawal of settlement applications filed earlier on the grounds that they had filed declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS) and their declarations had been accepted by the department. Accordingly there was no pending dispute in respect of various assessment years between the applicant and the department and the applicant had accepted the high pitched assessments made by the department with the income figures much higher than those offered before the ITSC. 

The applications were not admitted but for entirely different reasons that the only disclosure was of share income from the firms in respect of which the settlement applications were admitted and there was no need for separate admission of partners cases. The Bench did not agree with the applicants submission that the declaration under KVSS had been accepted by the CIT and, therefore, applications were fit for withdrawal.

[Top l Back]

M/s. Aditya Cargo Transport
M/s. ACT Shipping Ltd.
S.A.No.10/Raj/09&10/96-97/IT

ITSC Mumbai              
Order dated 21.04.1999

The applicant was carrying on the business as Customs House agent, Stevedoring agent and Shipping agent at Kandla Port. Its business was taken over by the Limited Company, i.e. M/s. ACT Shipping Ltd. owned by the same group. The settlement applications were filed in both the cases for block period ending 24.11.1995. In a statement u/s 132(4), the Managing Director Shri T.V. Sujan made a disclosure of Rs. 3 crore, which was later retracted. As per the appraisal report, the total concealed income was estimated at Rs.9.3 crore, with identifiable concealed assets of Rs.7.7 crore. Subsequently, the block assessments were completed in both the cases and net income of Rs.57,18,788 was determined in case of Aditya Cargo and Rs.23,26,430 in case of ACT Shipping. The applicants thereafter, took a plea that it was bothersome and expensive for them to pursue settlement proceedings before the Commission at Mumbai. The Assessing Officer had taken reasonable attitude. Therefore, the applicant would prefer to withdraw their application. Thereafter, a second report was received from the CIT maintaining that the order of block assessment completed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and resulted in escapement of income. Accordingly, the new Assessing Officer had reopened the assessments and contemplated prosecution in the above case. The second report of the CIT was challenged by the applicant's authorised representative on the ground that post application developments could not be taken into consideration. However, this was opposed by the CIT(DR) who referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Express News Papers Ltd. case. 

Accepting the CIT(DR)'s observations, the Bench decided that there was no specific ground for rejecting the applications. In view of the complexities of investigation involved, and the nature and circumstances of the case. The developments subsequent to the passing of assessment order also bear scrutiny by the Commission for the purpose of coming to a decision as to whether the application is suitable for admission or not. The CIT(DR) had pointed to substantial underassessments in the assessments made. He had also stated that the present CIT was of the opinion that the assessments completed were prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Necessary proceedings for reopening the cases had been launched. The department had also issued prosecution notice. It would appear that several facts were not considered while making the assessments. These developments clearly presaged a prolonged legal battle. Therefore, it would be in the interest of revenue and in the interest of justice to give a quiet us to these cases by admitting.

[Top l Back]