SHANTIDEVI AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 22.9.2017 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The relevant factual matrix obtaining on records and reflected from the order of learned Single Judge are that the respondent-Department conducted a search in the residential premises of the appellant. While the proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for short "the Act") were pending, the assessee preferred an application before the Settlement Commission seeking settlement of her case under Section 245-A of the Act. While proceeding to decide the case of settlement, the Settlement Commission obtained report of a registered Valuer in respect of property of the appellant. An addition of Rs. 97,34,210/- was made as undisclosed income spent in renovation of the house property. Addition was primarily based on the valuation report of the registered Valuer. The appellant, however, was not satisfied with the said addition and particularly the valuation report of the registered Valuer. A writ petition, therefore, was filed by the appellant wherein the order of the Settlement Commission was challenged on the ground that the Commission acted illegally and in violation of the provisions of the Act in seeking to obtain valuation report from registered Valuer instead of following the procedure prescribed under Section 142-A of the Act in the matter of obtaining valuation. The contention that power of the Settlement Commission to obtain evidence is circumscribed and regulated by the other provision of the Act and in the present case, under Section 142-A of the Act, did not find favour. Learned Single Judge held that Chapter XIX-A of the act is a complete code in itself so far as settlement of cases are concerned and on that analogy, it was held that it was not obligatory on the part of the Settlement Commission to obtain valuation report from the Valuation Officer referred to in Section 142-A of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argues that even though Chapter XIX-A deals with the powers and procedure relating to settlement of cases by Settlement Commission, while making an assessment under the settlement scheme, operation of other provisions of the Act are not intended to be excluded but on the contrary, the Commission is obliged under the Law to follow the same procedure for collection of evidence, information as is prescribed and applicable in the matter of carrying out regular assessment under the Act. He would submit that the power of the Commission to obtain the evidence as provided under Section 245-D (4) is circumscribed and regulated by Section 142-A of the Act which provides specifically for the procedure required to be adopted when the valuation report is to be obtained. He would submit that such an interpretation is necessary in order to make the machinery workable and to regulate exercise of power by the Commission, otherwise, the power to obtain evidence from any source, as the Commission chooses, would be unbridled and uncanalized which the Legislature never intended to confer. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 as also the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 63