Full Judgment
Bhattacharya, J.
1. By this writ application the writ petitioner has challenged an order dated October 31, 2002 (annexure P-7 to the petition), passed by the Settlement Commission refusing to entertain the case on the ground that the failure on the part of the petitioner in deducting tax at source does not come within the purview of Section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Being dissatisfied the petitioner has come up with the instant application.
3. Therefore, the only question that falls for determination in this writ application is whether in the aforesaid circumstances, the Settlement Commission was justified in refusing to entertain the application filed by the petitioner.
4. To appreciate the aforesaid question, involved herein the provisions contained in Section 245C(1) are set out below :
'An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided :
Provided that no such application shall be made unless,--
(a) the assessee has furnished the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of this Act; and
(b) the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees.'
5. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes no room for doubt that in order to apply the aforesaid provisions the following conditions must be fulfilled :
(a) There must be a case relating to the assessee ;
(b) The assessee must make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed (i) containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer ; (ii) the manner in which such income has been derived; (iii) the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income; and (iv) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
6. In the case before us it is not the case of the petitioner that it has not disclosed before the Assessing Officer any of his income. Therefore, the petitioner cannot invoke Section 245C(1) of the Act in the present case where the income-tax authority has alleged that he failed to deposit the appropriate amount of the tax deducted at source.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, by placing strong reliance upon the definition of 'case' in Section 245A(b) of the Act and of the provision of Section 245B of the Act tried to convince this court that Section 245C does not give jurisdiction to the Commission, but it is Section 245B that gives the jurisdiction.
8. I am afraid, I am not at all convinced by such submission. In this connection it may not be out of place to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd. : [1994]206ITR443(SC) , where the apex court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment in clear terms indicated that the assessee cannot approach the Commission for settlement of his case with respect to income already disclosed before the Assessing Officer because the conditions laid down in Section 245C were not fulfilled.
9. In view of the aforesaid strict interpretation given by the Supreme Court, I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned advocate for the petitioner that for the purpose of assessing the jurisdiction of the Commission the provisions contained in Section 245C(1) of the Act should be ignored.
10. I thus find that the Commission rightly refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioner as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved.
11. The writ application is thus devoid of any substance and is dismissed accordingly.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will, however, be no order as to costs.
13. All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.