Chennai: While permitting the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, central circle 2 (2), Chennai, to proceed with the assessment of income of film financiers and distributor Anbuchezhian, the Madras High Court has said the Assistant Commissioner shall not pass the final assessment order.
A division Bench comprising Justices S. Mani kumar and V. Bhavani Subbaroyan gave the directive while passing interim orders on an appeal filed by Anbu
chezhian, challenging an order of a single judge, dismissing his petition against the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, rejecting his application for settlement of his case.
According to Anbuchezhian, the I-T department conducted a search in his offices and residential premises in Chennai and Madurai on September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015, during which, materials were seized/impounded as well as cash amounting to '67 lakh from his residential premises. He, over and above the income returned for the relevant assessment years (2010-11 to 2015-16) amounting to '5,91,56,880, had admited undisclosed income of '25,10,95,304.
For the assessment year 2016-17, he filed an original return on December 15, 2016, declaring the total income of Rs 4,00,00,000. Thereafter, he preferred an application before the Settlement Commission on July 23, 2017, to settle the issues. The said application was rejected by order dated August 10, 2017, apart from other reason that he had reduced the quantum of transactions as per the seized material from '357 crore to '175 crore, he added. Pursuant thereto, he preferred the second settlement application dated December 26, 2017, before the Settlement Commission to settle three issues viz. He had paid an additional tax of '13, 31,02,037 for the relevant assessment years, which were covered in the settlement application. He had submitted confirmations of payments by the parties whose names were found in the loose sheets and diaries. This second application was rejected by order dated January 5, 2018, on the ground that the trueness and the fullness of the disclosure were lacking in the application.Challenging this order, he filed a petition and a single judge dismissed the same. Hence, he filed the present appeal, he added.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, appearing for the appellant submitted that the Settlement Commission has not applied its mind properly while rejecting the application. The application has been made under the IT Act, by declaring full and true particulars of the income. But the Settlement Commission did not take note of all the documents filed before it for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether full and true particulars had been filed, he added.
