Full Text
Translation output
/ $-56&57 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)2168/2015
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-II Petitioner
W.P.(C)2168/2015
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-II Petitioner
VERSUS
MURARILAL HARISH CHANDRA JAISWAL(P)
LTD.& ANR. Respondents
LTD.& ANR. Respondents
W.P.(C)2169/2015
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-X Petitioner
COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-X Petitioner
VERSUS
LATE SHRI HARISH CHAND JAISWAL& ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney and Mr Sanjay Kumarfor petitioner
Ms Vibha Dutta Makhija,Sr Advocate with Ms Vanshiya Shuklafor respondents
Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney and Mr Sanjay Kumarfor petitioner
Ms Vibha Dutta Makhija,Sr Advocate with Ms Vanshiya Shuklafor respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
09.03.2015 CM No.3903/2015 in W.P.ICI 2168/2015 and CM No.3904/2015 in W.P.tCl 2169/2015
The exemptions are allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
09.03.2015 CM No.3903/2015 in W.P.ICI 2168/2015 and CM No.3904/2015 in W.P.tCl 2169/2015
The exemptions are allowed subject to alljust exceptions.
W.P.(CI 2168/2015 and W.P.tCI 2169/2015
These petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement
Commission dated 01.11.2013 and 19.12.2013. The main point urged by Mr Kamal
Sawhney, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / revenue, is that no explanation had been offered by the respondents / applicants / assessee with regard to the huge amount ofcash amounting to approximately 20.42 crores. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We have been taken through the orders passed by the
Income Tax Settlement Commission as also the earlier order passed by the Customs and
Central Excise Settlement Commission dated 15.02.2007. That order was the subject matter of challenge before this court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4410/2007 which was
2015:DHC:11352-DB ultimately dismissed by this court on 17.09.2010. The cash which was seized from the petitioners was,in the earlier round,permitted to be paid towards excise duty in respect of clandestine removal ofmanufactured goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the use ofthe said cash ofpayment ofexcise duty did not absolve the respondent from explaining the source ofthe said cash.
We find thatin the application which was made by the respondents before the Income
Tax Settlement Commission,the explanation offered for the cash was that it represented the revenue generated out of unaccounted sales in respect of clandestine removal of chewing tobacco. That explanation has been accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. It was soughtto be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe respondents had not made afull and true disclosure but we find from the applications which were placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that this fact had been clearly disclosed in the said applications. We must point that this court in exercisingjurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe
Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the order passed by the Settlement
Commission and,therefore,we are not going into the merits ofthe matter. We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Settlement Commission. The writ petitions are dismissed.
AHMED,J MARCH 09,2015/SU VIBHU BAKHRU,J 2015:DHC:11352-DB
These petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement
Commission dated 01.11.2013 and 19.12.2013. The main point urged by Mr Kamal
Sawhney, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner / revenue, is that no explanation had been offered by the respondents / applicants / assessee with regard to the huge amount ofcash amounting to approximately 20.42 crores. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We have been taken through the orders passed by the
Income Tax Settlement Commission as also the earlier order passed by the Customs and
Central Excise Settlement Commission dated 15.02.2007. That order was the subject matter of challenge before this court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4410/2007 which was
2015:DHC:11352-DB ultimately dismissed by this court on 17.09.2010. The cash which was seized from the petitioners was,in the earlier round,permitted to be paid towards excise duty in respect of clandestine removal ofmanufactured goods. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the use ofthe said cash ofpayment ofexcise duty did not absolve the respondent from explaining the source ofthe said cash.
We find thatin the application which was made by the respondents before the Income
Tax Settlement Commission,the explanation offered for the cash was that it represented the revenue generated out of unaccounted sales in respect of clandestine removal of chewing tobacco. That explanation has been accepted by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. It was soughtto be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe respondents had not made afull and true disclosure but we find from the applications which were placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that this fact had been clearly disclosed in the said applications. We must point that this court in exercisingjurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe
Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the order passed by the Settlement
Commission and,therefore,we are not going into the merits ofthe matter. We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Settlement Commission. The writ petitions are dismissed.
AHMED,J MARCH 09,2015/SU VIBHU BAKHRU,J 2015:DHC:11352-DB
JUDGMENT