9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (4) TMI 23 - HC - Income TaxBy way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking relief to direct the Settlement Commission to proceed expeditiously with the application submitted by him, under section 245C - if the Settlement Commission decides not to proceed with the application, there is a distinct possibility of the Department not being able to realise the taxes in the circumstances of this case. So, we find that we are unable to interfere both on the ground of there being no statutory provision to justify a stay of proceedings before the income-tax authorities and also because the circumstances of the case would not justify such an act - petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Issues:
Seeking relief for expeditious processing of application under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking direction for the Settlement Commission to promptly process the application submitted under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent argued that interference in such matters is not warranted based on the decision in the case of Deen Dayal Didwania v. Union of India [1986] 160 ITR 12. The Division Bench opined that the Act does not provide for a stay of assessment proceedings while the Settlement Commission decides whether to proceed or not. Granting a stay would essentially be introducing a provision not justified by the statute. The Bench further noted that if the Settlement Commission decides to proceed with the application, it has the authority to issue any appropriate order regarding the settlement, irrespective of any assessment orders already passed. On the contrary, if the Commission chooses not to proceed, there is a risk of the Department facing challenges in tax realization. Consequently, the court declined to interfere, emphasizing the absence of statutory provisions for a stay of proceedings before income-tax authorities and the circumstances not justifying such intervention. Therefore, the petition was dismissed in line with these observations.
|
