Commissioner of Income Tax Central II v. Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

1. The Revenue has filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned order dated 27^*^ June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (ITSC) to the extent that it has granted immunity from prosecution as well as the penalty to the Respondents. W.Ps.(C) 9016/2014 & 9411/2014 Page 1 of[3] 2017:DHC:8918-DB o //

2. Although in the course ofthe proceedings before the ITSC, based on the report submitted on behalf ofthe Revenue, an addition beyond what was originally disclosed by the Assessee was made, the order of the ITSC determining the amount payable by the Respondents was not challenged by them.

3. The grievance of the Revenue is that the ITSC granted the Respondents immunity from penalty and prosecution without recording its satisfaction that there has been a full and true disclosure of the income as well as the manner in which such income has been derived by the Respondents. It is submitted this was mandatory condition in terms of Section 254H (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act').

4. Both the sides have placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II v. BDR Builders and Developers (2016) 385ITR 111 (Del).

5. In the aforesaid decision, this Court, in similar circumstances, set aside the order.of the ITSC granting immunity from prosecution and penalty and remanded the matter to the ITSC for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

6. Following the said decision, the impugned order ofthe ITSC to the extent it has granted the Respondents immunity from penalty and prosecution is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the ITSC for a fresh decision on that question in accordance with law in that regard. W.Ps.(C) 9016/2014 & 9411/2014 Page 2 of[3] 1 )

8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. JULY 21,2017 'anb' W.Ps.(C) 9016/2014 & 9411/2014

7. The matter be listed for directions before the ITSC on 30"* August, 2017 S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. SINCT, J Page 3 of[3] 2017:DHC:8918-DB. / \ $-44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9411/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr. Ashpk Manchanda, Advocates versus STANDARD FARMS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 19.09.2017 CM APPL. 34374/2017 (for correction in cause title) in W.P.(C) 9411/2014

1. For the reasons stated therein, this application is allowed.

2. The cause title oftheorder dated 21^' July, 2017 shall read as under: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II Petitioner Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Mr.; Ashok Manchanda, Advocates vei^sus STANDARD FARMS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate SEPTEMBER 19, 2017 dk

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

LiAxm., PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.