RASIK RAMJI KAMANI Vs. S K TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOON after Chapter XIX-A was introduced into the Income-Tax Act, 1961, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the petitioner herein Rasik Ramji Kamani involved the facilities afforded by that benign fiscal measure, by moving the Settlement Commissioner with the necessary application. The application was admitted on 15-12-1976. Soon thereafter, the Commissioner by its notices issued in December 1976 directed the petitioner to file a Statement of Facts (in relation to the income -Tax, and Wealth-Tax, respectively on 24th, 25th and 26th December, 1976.) Such a statement was filed, but only on 7-3-1978 "seeking successive adjournments".

(2.) KAMANI family, of which the appellant is a member, was in control of several corporate entities It is a fairly long list. As it quite often happens in respect of such controlled Companies, the members of the family had their distinct roles in ordaining the affairs of those companies.

(3.) SOME had vaster powers and greater influences. They had subtle and sophisticated operations. Many of them were on wings and wheels, now in London, now in Sudan, now in Switzerland and so on. It is unnecessary to dilate on the activities of the Companies or of the persons at the wheel. It is a fact as part of a deliberate design, and with the full knowledge of the legal consequences, the advantages derivable and the risks arisable, various legal agencies were created in foreign countries. Such concerns accumulated profits really derived by the business activities in India. The members of the family received could receive the accumulated funds standing in their names. Dissensions and differences which arose among the members of the family and otherwise, generated many litigations which spread out to even alien fields. The attempts of each group at overpowering the rival groups as revealed from the prolix records need not be recounted in this case and at this stage. It is sufficient to indicate that the Settlement Commission felt that the general information furnished by the appellant along with his application for settlement, was bereft of specific particulars to enable the Commission to have a good grip of facts to undertake the delicate operation which the Commission had to perform in such a situation. The appellant was called upon to furnish additional particulars. Thereupon the appellant filed a supplementary statement of facts on 1st December, 1983. The Settlement Commission found that too inadequate, insufficient and unsatisfactory.