Bombay High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Income Tax Settlement Commisison ... on 25 April, 2024
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
Digitally
signed by
2024:BHC-OS:6823-DB
MEERA
MEERA
MAHESH
MAHESH JADHAV
1/12 212-wp-432-20.doc
JADHAV Date:
2024.04.29
10:22:30
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2020
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3 ...Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) & Ors ...Respondents
----
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Petitioner.
None for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED : 25th APRIL 2024 P.C. :
1 The following are the grounds taken in the petition to impugn the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 28 th June 2018. The said grounds read as under:
"(i) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the Applicant has offered 'satisfactory explanation' about the nature and source of cash loans of Rs. 1150.29 Crores in terms of Section 68 of the Act and, therefore, no adverse inference is required to be drawn from the seized data pertaining to cash loans in terms of Section 68 of the Act read with Section 292C of the Act.
(ii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the details of cash loans in the form of name and address of the lender, PAN (wherever available), name of the finance broker through whom loan was arranged and the ledger account would satisfy the requirement of provisions of Section 68 of the Act to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions.
(iii) The Respondent No.1 erred in accepting the cash loans as genuine without directing any enquiry as to the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and also in the absence of any confirmation from the loan creditors or the finance brokers.
(iv) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the third party Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 2/12 212-wp-432-20.doc evidence in support of fact and substantiation of fact relating to such unaccounted cash entries was a practical impossibility and that failure to obtain third party evidence (confirmation letters from the loan creditors) to substantiate the cash loans cannot be held against the Applicants, which is contrary to the decision of the Special Bench of ITSC in the case of MAAD Realtors & Infra Ltd. wherein such plea was rejected.
(v) The Respondent No. 1 erred in misinterpreting the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanakala (291 ITR 271) and Sumati Dayal (2141TR801) and incorrectly holding that the facts as disclosed in the settlement application can be held as true and correct in the absence of any substantiation of such facts and that the evidence and substantiation of fact was a practical impossibility in this case.
(vi) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the provision of Section 245C(1) and 245H(1) of the Act provide for only disclosure of fact regarding earning of income but do not require substantiation of such fact, without appreciating that the requirement of 'true & full disclosure is not fulfilled without substantiation of the facts.
(vii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the facts as disclosed in the settlement application can be held as true and correct in the absence of substantiation of such facts.
(viii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in conspicuously omitting the operative portion of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of MAAD Realtors while quoting the text therefrom selectively (in paragraph 17.2.22(xiii) of the order) to come to an erroneous conclusion that the Judgment of the Special Bench only provides for general guidelines and Section 68 is to be applied on case to case basis.
(ix) The Respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the onus cast on the Applicants under Section 68 in respect of the cash loans has been discharged by the Applicant, even though the Applicants furnished incomplete details in support of the identity, without any confirmation letters from the loan creditors, and failed to furnish any evidence in support of the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the cash loan transactions found recorded in loose papers / pen-
drives seized during the course of search and seizure action.
(x) The Respondent No. 1 erred in directing repayment of cash loan of Rs. 299.38 Crores outstanding as on 25.06.2015 out of accounted funds, without any verification of genuineness of the said claim of outstanding loan of Rs. 299.38 Crores.
(xi) The Respondent No. I erred in giving such direction of repayment of outstanding cash loan of Rs. 299.38 Crores out of accounted funds of the Applicants, which legitimizes the outstanding unaccounted cash loans, when the Applicants have not offered such cash loans as Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 3/12 212-wp-432-20.doc undisclosed income in the settlement application and there is no evidence of the application of the outstanding cash loan of Rs. 299.38 Crores in the assets as reflected in the balance-sheet.
(xii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in not specifying any time frame for repayment of the outstanding cash loan of Rs. 299.38 Crores and in not spelling out the consequence of non-payment of the entire or part of the outstanding loan as part of the terms of settlement, which renders the direction / order of ITSC on this issue perverse.
(xiii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in accepting the Applicants' offer of additional undisclosed income of Rs. 25.52 Crores on account of peak of undisclosed funds of Shri Jagdish Ahuja rotated in the business of Ahuja Group instead of rejecting the settlement applications as not containing full and true disclosure of the income, as required under Section 245C(1) of the Act, particularly after holding that the Applicant could not offer any reasonable justification for not having offered the peak amount of Rs. 25.52 crores as additional income in the settlement application and the Commission was of the considered view that amount is required to be assessed in the hands of the Applicant Group as further additional income.
(xiv) On this issue of acceptance of additional undisclosed income of Rs.25.52 Crores, the order of ITSC suffers from perversity and gross error of law.
(xv) Respondent No. 1 has grossly erred in levying miniscule penalty of Rs. 65 Lakhs each under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, which works out to 0.057% of the leviable penalty of Rs. 2280.09 Crores, which renders the order of waiver by the ITSC under Section 245H(1) of the Act perverse on the ground of arbitrary exercise of power of waiver conferred under the Act.
(xvi) Respondent No. 1 has erred in restricting the additional income on account of 'on-money' @ 12% of total 'on-money' receipts and allowing the claim of expenditure to the extent of 88% of on-money receipts without examining the details and purpose of such expenses and allowability of the said expenses under the provisions of the Act.
(xvii) Respondent No. 1 erred in not examining the source of cash expenditure of interest as well as other expenses claimed in the summary of unaccounted expenses, which exceeded the on-money receipts to the tune of Rs. 218.59 Crores and also in not invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source out of interest payments in cash and brokerage payment in cash claimed as unaccounted expenses.
(xviii) The Respondent No. 1 erred in not directing the deficit of Rs. 218.59 Crores as per summary of unaccounted receipts & expenses as additional undisclosed income, as the source of such unaccounted expenses over unaccounted receipts remains unexplained.
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 :::
4/12 212-wp-432-20.doc
(xix) Respondent No. 1 erred in accepting the additional disclosure of Rs. 3.94 Crores on account of accommodation entry, which was not disclosed in the settlement applications although the amount was offered as income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, instead of rejecting the settlement application as not containing full and true disclosure of undisclosed income as required under Section 245C(1) of the Act."
2 Considering the grounds of challenge, it is rather obvious that the revenue is aggrieved by the discretion exercised by the ITSC, the interpretation placed by the ITSC on the sufficiency of the evidence available and on the documents seized, on the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no allegation in the petition of any fraud or malice or bias against the settlement commission. Therefore, the view and opinion expressed by this court to a challenge of this nature by the revenue to an order passed by the ITSC as held in Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-II Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd.) 1 as well as in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3, Mumbai Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (M/s Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt Ltd.)2 , will be squarely applicable to the case at hand. It will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 7 to 15 of Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt Ltd. (supra) which read as under:
"7 The Apex Court in Jyotendrasinhji Vs. S. I. Tripathi [(1993) 68 Taxman 59 (SC)] has discussed the scope of challenge to orders passed by the ITSC. The Apex Court has held that after examining such further evidence as it may be placed before it, the ITSC may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit. The Apex Court also held that the scope of enquiry is restricted to whether the order passed by the ITSC is contrary to any of the 1 2024 SCC Online Bom 1090 2 Order dated 18th April 2024 in Writ Petition No.1830 of 2019 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 5/12 212-wp-432-20.doc provisions of the Act and if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the assessee. The Apex Court has held that the order of the ITSC is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be ordinarily possible to dissect its order and accept what is favourable and reject what is not. Moreover, it is open to the ITSC to accept an amount of tax by way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which it is to be paid. The Apex Court further held that the ITSC has the discretion to condone the defaults, penalties or prosecution, where it thinks appropriate. Thus, the sole limitation upon the ITSC is to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The ITSC, as held in Jyotendrasinhji (supra), need not even give reasons. The Apex Court further held that even if the interpretation placed by the ITSC on documents is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference since a wrong interpretation of documents cannot be said to be a violation of the provisions of the Act. The Apex Court has held that the scope of enquiry by the High Court under Article 226 should be restricted to i) whether the ITSC has acted in accordance to the provisions of the Act and ii) whether the order passed by it has prejudiced assessee apart from the ground of bias, fraud and malice which constitute a separate and independent category. For ease of reference, paragraphs no. 14 and 15 of Jyotendrasinhji (supra) reads as under:
"14. The first question we have to answer is the scope of these appeals preferred under Article 136 against the orders of the Settlement Commission. The question is whether all the questions of fact and law as may have been decided by the Commission are open to review in this appeal. For answering this question one has to have regard to the scheme of Chapter XIX-A. The said chapter was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 with effect from 1-4-1976. A somewhat similar provision was contained sub-sections (1A) to (1D) of Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 introduced in the year 1954. The provisions of Chapter XIX-A are, however, qualitatively different and more elaborate than the said provisions in the 1922 Act. The proceedings under this chapter commence by an application made by the assessee as contemplated by Section 245C. Section 245D prescribes the procedure to be followed by the commission on receipt of an application under Section 245C. Sub-section (4) says: 'after examination of the records and the report of the commissioner received under sub-section (1), and the report, if any, of the commissioner received under sub- section (3), and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the commissioner to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the settlement commission may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 6/12 212-wp-432-20.doc by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub- section (3)." Section 245E empowers the Commission to reopen the completed proceedings in appropriate cases, while Section 245F confers all the powers of an Income Tax authority upon the Commission. Section 245H empowers the Commission to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution, with or without conditions, in cases where it is satisfied that the assessee has made a full disclosure of his income and its sources. Under Section 245HA the Commission can send back, the matter to assessing. officer, where it finds that the applicant is not cooperating with it. Section 245-I declares that every order of settlement passed under Sub Section (4) of Section 245D shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in, Chapter XIX-A, be re- opened in any proceeding under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force. Section 245L declares that any proceedings under chapter XIX-A before the settlement commission shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Section 193 and 228 and for the purposes of Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. It is true that the finality clause contained in Section 245I does not and cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as the case may be. But that does not mean that the jurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directly in this court is any different than what it would be if the assessee had first approached the High Court under Article 226 and then come up in appeal to this court under Article 136. A party does not and cannot gain any advantage by approaching this Court directly under Article 136, instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226. This is not a limitation inherent in Article 136; it is a limitation which this court imposes on itself having regard to the nature of the function performed by the Commission and keeping in view the principles of judicial review. May be, there is also some force in what Dr. Gauri Shankar says viz., that the order of commission is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, to dissect its order and that the assessee should not be permitted to accept what is favourable to him and reject what is not. According to learned counsel, the Commission is not even required or obligated to pass a reasoned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is open to the Commission to accept an amount of tax by way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which the said amount shall be paid. It may condone the defaults and lapses on the part Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 7/12 212-wp-432-20.doc of the assessee and may waive interest, penalties or prosecution, where it thinks appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult to predicate the reasons and considerations which induce the commission to make a particular order, unless of course the commission itself chooses to, give reasons for its order. Even if it gives reasons in a given case, the scope of enquiry in the appeal remains the same as indicated above viz., whether it is,contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. In this context, it is relevant to note that the principle of natural justice (and alteram partem) has been incorporated in Section 245D itself. The sole overall limitation upon the Commission, thus, appears, to be that it should act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scope of enquiry, whether by High Court under Article 226 or by this Court under Article 136 is also the same whether the order of the Commission is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, has it prejudiced the petitioner/appellant apart from ground of bias, fraud & malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category. Reference in this behalf may be had to the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Durga Prasad v. Settlement Commission 176 I.T.R. 169, which too was an appeal against the orders of the Settlement Commission. Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for the Bench comprising himself and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case this Court is "concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order.' The learned Judge added 'judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision-making process." Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House of Lords in Chief Constable of the N.W. Police v. Evans, [1982] 1 W.L.R.1155. Thus, the appellate power under Article 136 was equated to power of judicial review, where the appeal is directed against the orders' of the Settlement Commission. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the only ground upon which this Court can interfere in these appeals is that order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that such contravention has prejudiced the appellant. The main controversy in these appeals relates to the interpretation of the settlement deeds though it is true, some contentions of law are also raised. The commission has interpreted the trust deeds in a particular manner. Even if the interpretation placed by the commission the said deeds is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference in these appeals, since a wrong interpretation of a deed of trust cannot be said to be a violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is equally clear that the interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the Commission does not bind the authorities under the Act in proceedings relating to other assessment years. In view of the above, though it is not necessary, Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 8/12 212-wp-432-20.doc strictly speaking, to go into the correctness of the interpretation placed upon the said deeds by the commission, and it is enough if we confine ourselves to the question whether the order of the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Act, we propose to, for the sake of completeness, examine also whether the order of Commission is vitiated by any such wrong interpretation?"
(emphasis supplied) 8 In N. Krishnan vs. Settlement Commission And Others, [(1989) 180 ITR 585] it is held that the ITSC is the forum for self surrender and seeking relief and not a forum for challenging the legality of assessment order or orders passed in any other proceedings. The Karnataka High Court held that the power conferred on the settlement commission is so wide that it can take any view on any questions of law, which it considers appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case including giving immunity against prosecution or imposition of penalty. The Karnataka High Court further held that it is in the nature of statutory arbitration to which a person may submit himself voluntarily and the scope of interference is much more restricted than the power of the court to interfere with an arbitration award.
9 A similar matter came to be considered by this court in the Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-II Vs. Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd. This court after considering all the judgments cited, noted that in R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das (Supra) the court held that any challenge to the orders of the Settlement Commission, the High Court should be concerned with the legality of the procedure followed and not with the validity of the order. The judicial review should be concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process. Thus, the Court could not interfere with the order if otherwise proper on the ground that the decision appeared erroneous. The decision wrong or right was binding, if it is reached fairly after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their case in the manner provided by the Act. Unless grave procedural defect such as violation of the mandatory procedural requirements of the provisions of Chapter XIX-A and/or violation of rules of natural justice is made out or if it is found that there is no nexus between the reasons given and the decision taken only then the court may interfere. Thus, it is clear that the powers conferred on the ITSC is so wide that it has the discretion to take any view on any question of law, which it considers appropriate, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court ought not to sit in appeal as to the sufficiency of the material and particulars placed before the ITSC.
10 In Kanakia Spaces (Supra) the court has held that Section 292C(1)
(ii) and Section 132(4A) of the Act mandates that the contents of seized documents are true. Where any books of accounts or other documents are or is found in possession or control of any person in the course of a search it may be presumed that the contents of such Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 9/12 212-wp-432-20.doc books of account and other documents are true. The issue of income revised percentage of profit, cash loans, bogus purchases from Dwish Enterprise, etc., came up for consideration before the ITSC on the basis of documents found during the search under Section 132 of the Act. The revenue cannot raise any grievance on the acceptance of entries in the documents by the ITSC because once the contents of documents are accepted as correct, then no further inquiry was required to be carried out. Moreover, inquiry under Section 245D(3) of the Act was subject to discretion of the ITSC as it relates to question of fact and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this court. Moreover, as held in Jyotendrasinhji (supra), even if the interpretation placed by the ITSC on the documents seized is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference since a wrong interpretation of documents cannot be said to be a violation of the provisions of the Act. Further, as held in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [(2023) 7 NYPCTR 1353 (SC)] sufficiency of the material and particulars placed before the Commission based on which the Commission proceeded to pass its orders are beyond the scope of judicial review. As held by the Apex Court in Brij Lal And Others vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2010) 328 ITR 477 (SC) the High Court should not scrutinize an order or proceeding of the ITSC as an appellate court.
11 Therefore, in our view, ITSC was entitled to exercise discretion while passing the impugned order and has exercised its discretion. In our view, there is neither violation of any mandatory procedure prescribed under any of the sections of Chapter XIX-A of the Act nor any violation of any of the Rules of natural justice. Further, it cannot be said that the reasons assigned by the ITSC for granting relief sought for by assessee have no nexus to the decision taken.
12 As held by the Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (supra), unsettling reasoned orders of the ITSC, and in the present case order runs into almost 170 pages, may erode the confidence of bonafide assessee thereby leading to multiple litigation where settlement is possible and this larger picture has to be borne in mind. Moreover, the members of the ITSC have been appointed by Central Government in accordance with Section 245B(3) of the Act for their integrity and outstanding ability and for special knowledge and experience in, problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts. The members of the ITSC, therefore, cannot be questioned for their decision or for exercising their discretion.
13 It will be useful to reproduce, at this stage, paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31 of Kanakia Spaces (Supra), which read as under:
"28. As held in N. Krishnan (supra), the ITSC is the forum for self surrender and seeking relief and not a forum for challenging the legality of assessment order or orders passed in any other proceedings. This is evident from the provisions of the Act because it even prevents the application made from being withdrawn. The power Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 10/12 212-wp-432-20.doc conferred on the settlement commission is so wide that it can take any view on any questions of law, which it considers appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case including giving immunity against prosecution or imposition of penalty. Therefore, the scope of interference against a decision of the Settlement Commission is very narrow. As observed in N. Krishnan (supra), it is in the nature of statutory arbitration to which a person may submit himself voluntarily and the scope of interference is much more restricted than the power of the court to interfere with an arbitration award.
29. Unsettling reasoned orders of the Settlement Commission, as noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (supra), may erode the confidence of bona fide assessee, thereby leading to multiplicity of litigation where settlement is possible and this larger picture has to be borne in mind.
30. Moreover, we also should note that Section 245B(3) of the Act provides that Chairman, Vice Chairman and other members of the Settlement Commission shall be appointed by the Central Government from amongst persons of integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge of, and, experience in, problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts. Therefore, the members of the ITSC have been appointed because of their integrity and outstanding ability and for the special knowledge and experience in problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts. It is rather unfortunate that the Central Government questions the findings of the ITSC without explicitly and in detail explaining how the order of the Commission is contrary to the provision of the Act or there was miscarriage of justice or order has been passed without jurisdiction. More so when bias or fraud or malice is not alleged in the petition against the members of the ITSC. In the case at hand we are not satisfied that the order of the ITSC is contrary to the provisions of the Act.
It is rather unfortunate that the Commissioner who has filed the Writ Petition is sitting in appeal over findings of the members of the ITSC.
Chapter XIX-A was inserted to enable an assessee, at any stage of a case relating to him, to make an application containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the A.O., the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the ITSC to have the case settled. When such an application is made and the ITSC is satisfied that there has been a full and true disclosure, the department cannot raise any grievance. Unless a case of bias or fraud or malice is alleged, not being a bald allegation, but with Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 11/12 212-wp-432-20.doc details, no petition by Revenue impugning an order by the ITSC should be entertained. We say this because the Central Government has appointed the persons who are members of the Commission as they are persons of integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge of, and, experience in, problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts. Or the order impugned must be so perverse that no person would pass such an order, like for e.g., it is said the sun rises in the west. An assessee may have a little more leeway as per the scope prescribed in Jyotendrasinhji (supra).
31. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (supra), interference with the orders of the ITSC should be avoided, keeping in mind the legislative intent. The scope of interference is very narrow and certainly the High Court should not scrutinize an order of the ITSC as an appellate court. Unsettling reasoned orders of the ITSC may erode the confidence of assessees. This larger picture has to be kept in mind."
14 As observed in Kanakia Spaces (Supra), petitioner is in effect sitting in appeal over the decision and wisdom of the members of the ITSC. As held in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr [(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 121] that Chapter XIXA makes it clear that the ITSC exercises many powers which affect all the rights of the parties before it and vests in it powers to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty, to investigate into many matters and to enjoy conclusiveness regarding its orders or settlement. It is further stated Chapter XIXA was inserted on the basis of recommendation by the Wanchoo Committee which was mindful of the benefits of a policy of collection of tax without protracted litigation through the machinery of the Settlement Commission. So it expressed the view that it was of paramount importance that only persons who are known for their integrity and high sense of justice and fairness are selected for appointment on the Commission. The gravity of this public policy cannot be undermined by the revenue itself by challenging the reasoned orders of the Settlement Commission.
15 In the circumstances, as it is evident from Section 245 of the Act that the Central Government has appointed the members as their representatives to settle the disputes with assesee, which reflects the confidence they had in the members because the persons appointed are of integrity and known for their outstanding ability and expertise and for the special knowledge and experience in problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts. Therefore, these members have been authorised to settle the disputes on behalf of the Government and it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to challenge the decision taken by their own representatives without making allegations of bias or fraud or malice."
Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 ::: 12/12 212-wp-432-20.doc 3 In the circumstances, in our view, this petition cannot be entertained. Therefore, petition dismissed. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 18:39:38 :::