DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The Income Tax Department has challenged an Order dated June 10, 2014 passed by the Settlement Commission (Income Tax and Wealth Tax), Additional Bench, Kolkata in these writ petitions. The three writ petitions, all at the behest of the Income Tax Department, involve similar issues and have been heard analogously.
(2.) The parties have treated of 2016 as the lead case and have advanced their respective submissions thereon.
(3.) Additional Solicitor General appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that, the impugned order is perverse. It does not give any reasons as to why the Settlement Commission has added the quantum of expenditure as done in the impugned order. There is no basis for adding such small quantum given the nature of the transactions that the Settlement Commission has considered in the Impugned Order. The Settlement Commission did not consider the report of the Department filed under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Rules. It should not have added the entire amount as claimed by the private respondent. It has not given any reasons as to why it has added a sum of Rs.32 crores only. It could have been any other amount other than the sum of Rs.32 crores. It has failed to exercise best judgment. On the issue of best judgment, Additional Solicitor General relies upon 1978 Volume 115 Income Tax Reports page 524 ( Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and New Delhi-III ) and All India Reporter 1977 AP page 36 ( Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trikamji Punia & Sons ).;