AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the respondent.
These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants-revenue were dismissed and the orders passed by the Incometax Settlement Commission directing release of the seized ornaments/jewellery to the respective assessees were upheld.
In the first case, such order was passed by the Settlement Commission on 13/12/2005 in a matter arising out of the proceedings u/s 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The contention of Shri Anuroop Singhi, learned Counsel for the revenue is that in the first case, even the the estimated disclosed income according to the appellant was Rs. 92 lacs, whereas the respondent-assessee admitted the income of only Rs. 12 lacs and, therefore, at the premature stage, jewellery/ornaments could not be ordered to be released.
In the second case also, a similar argument has been made that as against the admitted tax liability of Rs. 20 lacs, out of stock having value of Rs. 44 lacs, release of jewellery to the extent of Rs. 20 could not have been made by the Settlement Commission pending final order in the proceedings u/s 245D(4).
Learned Counsel for the revenue argued that according to Section 132B of the Act of 1961, such an order could be made only when the final order is passed so as to enable the department to adjust the demand against such assets.
On the other hand, Shri Gunjan Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent-assess opposed the writ petition and has argued that the Settlement Commission wields all such powers which are exersicable by any of the Income Tax authorities. Reference in this connection is made to Section 245F of the Act of 1961 and more particularly, its Sub-section (1) and it is argued that in addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIXA of the Act, the Commission shall have all the powers which are vested in any of the Income Tax authorities under the said Act. Learned Counsel argued that when by virtue of Section 132B of the Act, an assessing authority can within 30 days from the end of the month in which the assets are seized, can direct release thereof, the argument that Settlement Commission would have no such powers is not tenable.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that this Court may not examine the matter on merits and rather direct the Settlement Commission to decide the main matter u/s 245D(4) of the Act of 1961 within a time bound manner. Learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee also does not object to any such direction.
Without therefore interfering with the impugned-orders, we deem it appropriate to direct the Income Tax Settlement Commission to conclude the proceedings u/s 245B of the Act of 1961 finally and decide the same within three moths from the date certified copy of this order is produced before it.
These special appeals are accordingly disposed of.