SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION.--DADI JAGANNADHAM Vs. JAMMULU RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON behalf of the applicant and explained why the application should be proceeded with.

(2.) IN the said hearing, the learned Authorised Representative Shri Bharat Agarwal candidly brought to our notice that in additional income disclosed in the application did not exceed Rs. 3 lakhs as required under proviso (i) to s. 245C(1) of the Act. (It was just Rs. 3 lakhs). In order to make good this deficiency, the applicant filed the present application disclosing an additional income of Rs. 5,05,000 instead of Rs. 5 lakhs in the earlier petition so that the tax on additional income now exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs.

(3.) THE Commission carefully considered the submission of the applicant and passed an order under s. 245D(1) on 9th 2009 in which he raised the fundamental objection to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain this application since it involved assessment of a search case. It was further pointed out that the applicant had earlier filed proceedings were pending. It was further explained that because of multiplicity of applications the disclosure is not true and full. that the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain this application which involved search and seizure assessments. The second argument was that there have been multiplicity of applications and the present application is the third application based on the same facts. Since, the third application has increased the disclosed income, compared to the earlier applications it clearly proves that the applicant has not made a true and full disclosure of income. Reliance was placed on the following judgments :