Pr. CIT v. Shreyansh Corporation

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax PublishersSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 19458/2020 with Diary No(s). 19440/2020 (III)
2021 TaxPub(DT) 0109 (SC) : (2021) 277 TAXMAN 0403

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 261

Where the department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Shreyansh Corporation [R/Special Civil Application Nos. 15653 & 15658 of 2019, dt. 7-10-2019] : (2020) 421 ITR 153 (Guj) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7659 (Guj-HC), whereby the High Court held that the offer to pay such amounts in addition to the amounts disclosed in the applications under section 245C could not be said to be disclosure of any further amounts under that section as the same had been offered only to bring about a settlement fact that the applicants had offered to pay such amounts, the liability whereof had not been accepted by them, could not be termed as non-disclosure of full and true facts in the applications under section 245C, the Supreme Court as there was delay of 214 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions and the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation was far from being satisfactory, refused to condone delay, Consequently, the SLPs were dismissed on the ground of delay.

Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Settlement Commission - Full and true disclosure--Offer of additional income, whether part of disclosure under section 245C already made

Department preferred SLP to appeal against the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Pr. CIT v. Shreyansh Corporation [R/Special Civil Application Nos. 15653 & 15658 of 2019, dt. 7-10-2019] : (2020) 421 ITR 153 (Guj) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7659 (Guj-HC), whereby the High Court held that the offer to pay such amounts in addition to the amounts disclosed in the applications under section 245C could not be said to be disclosure of any further amounts under that section as the same had been offered only to bring about a settlement fact that the applicants had offered to pay such amounts, the liability whereof had not been accepted by them, could not be termed as non-disclosure of full and true facts in the applications under section 245C. Held: The Supreme Court as there was delay of 214 days in filing the Special Leave Petitions and the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation was far from being satisfactory, refused to condone delay, Consequently, the SLPs were dismissed on the ground of delay.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : SLP dismissed.

A.Y. :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA