LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-231

MANOJKUMAR BABULAL AGRAWALA Vs. SECRETORY

Decided On June 13, 2017
Manojkumar Babulal Agrawala Appellant
V/S
Secretory Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission ('the Commission' for short) under section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) rejecting the petitioner's settlement application.

(2.) Brief facts are as under:

(3.) Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel Shri Soparkar took us extensively through the documents on record. He drew our attention to the various orders passed by the Settlement Commission including the final order rejecting the application of the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner had produced materials on record to substantiate his theory that all the transactions mentioned in the seized diary did represent his own trading in the commodities. To the extent 29 names/entities represented his direct dealings, the petitioner had offered the entire amount to tax in the settlement application itself. In the remaining transactions the petitioner had acted only as a broker and received 0.4% brokerage on the value of the transactions. The Settlement Commission committed a serious error in rejecting such a contention though the same was duly supported by reliable evidence on record. In particular, counsel for the petitioner would place heavy reliance on the four affidavits all dated 18.06.2016 which the petitioner produced before the Settlement Commission sworn by four persons who confirmed that the transactions in question were supplied by them to the petitioner and the petitioner had merely acted as a broker and they were the sub-brokers. Main thrust of the counsel's contention was that all such materials were discarded by the Settlement Commission without proper inquiries. If at all such affidavits were to be disbelieved, least that was needed was to cross examine such deponents and to make further inquiries. The counsel would also rely on the observations made by the Settlement Commission in the earlier orders allowing the settlement applications to proceed further. According to him, the Settlement Commission found no adverse material at that stage to reject the application of the petitioner. No further material was brought on record by the department thereafter to enable the Settlement Commission to reject the application at the stage of passing order under Section 245D(4) of the Act.