2009 (8) TMI 767 - HC - Income Tax

Abatement of application of settlement - amendment vide Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 - applications were filed before 1.6.2007 - the instant matters pertain to applications being filed before the Settlement Commission on or before June 1, 2007 and all such applications being finally decided by the Commission by March 31, 2008, what has been pointed out by counsel for the respective parties is that the Settlement Commission has failed to comply with mandate pro- vided under section 245D(4) of the Act and if having failed to comply with the statutory requirement-legal obligation whereof is cast upon it, as a result of violation whereof, the orders impugned cannot be said to be in consonance with the requirement of law. - Held that Question arises for consideration as to whether in the facts of the instant cases, there can be considered to be true compliance with the statutory mandate under section 245D(4) of the Act. There cannot be two opinions about it and the irresistible conclusion is that the Settlement Commission has failed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing nor examined the records as per the statutory requirement of law and has passed the orders impugned without due application of mind ; in such circumstances, the orders impugned in no manner are legally sustainable and are in violation of section 245D(4) of the Act. Remanded matters - The Settlement Commission holds the authority under the Act and power is vested and only by amendment, vide the Finance Act, 2007 by putting rider of March 31, 2008, the Legislature only intended that if applications remained pending, it stands abated but it will not render the Settlement Commission functus officio to examine matter afresh after orders having been passed remitting back to the Settlement Commission. Matters are remitted back to the respective Settlement Commission Benches to decide the applications of the assessees filed under section 245C after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties - as a consequence whereof, if there would be any refund ordered, the assessee would certainly be entitled for interest at 15 per cent. per annum

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Settlement Commission's orders under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether matters should be remitted back to the Settlement Commission or the assessing authority if the orders are found unsustainable.
3. Compliance with the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice by the Settlement Commission.
4. Jurisdiction and functus officio status of the Settlement Commission post-March 31, 2008.
5. The impact of the Finance Act, 2007 amendments on pending applications before the Settlement Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Settlement Commission's Orders under Section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The primary issue revolved around whether the orders passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) were legally sustainable. Both assessees and the Revenue argued that the Settlement Commission's procedure violated section 245D(4) by not following the statutory mandate, specifically failing to examine records and provide adequate opportunity for hearing. The court observed that the Settlement Commission admitted to the impracticability of examining records and affording proper hearings due to the high volume of cases and time constraints imposed by the court's directive to decide by March 31, 2008. Consequently, the orders were deemed to lack due application of mind and appreciation of material on record, rendering them legally unsustainable.

2. Remitting Matters Back to the Settlement Commission or Assessing Authority
Counsel for the assessees argued that if the orders were found unsustainable, the matters should be remitted back to the Settlement Commission for fresh examination. Conversely, the Revenue contended that due to the amendments effective from June 1, 2007, and the Settlement Commission becoming functus officio post-March 31, 2008, the matters should be remitted to the assessing authority as per section 245HA(2). The court concluded that since the applications were decided by March 31, 2008, section 245HA(1)(iv) did not apply, and thus, the matters should be remitted back to the Settlement Commission.

3. Compliance with Statutory Procedure and Principles of Natural Justice
The court emphasized that the Settlement Commission failed to comply with the statutory requirements under section 245D(4), which mandates examining records, considering the Commissioner's report, and affording a hearing to the parties. The orders were passed without due application of mind and were thus in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate. The court held that non-compliance with these requirements constituted prejudice to the parties.

4. Jurisdiction and Functus Officio Status of the Settlement Commission Post-March 31, 2008
The Revenue argued that the Settlement Commission became functus officio after March 31, 2008, and could not be conferred jurisdiction to decide the applications. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction continued as long as it was in existence and that the statutory amendment only intended to abate pending applications, not render the Commission functus officio. Therefore, the court directed that the matters be remitted back to the Settlement Commission for fresh examination.

5. Impact of the Finance Act, 2007 Amendments on Pending Applications
The Finance Act, 2007, introduced amendments effective from June 1, 2007, requiring the Settlement Commission to decide applications by March 31, 2008, failing which the proceedings would abate. The court noted that the amendments did not affect applications decided by March 31, 2008, and thus, the orders passed by the Settlement Commission, although unsustainable, did not lead to abatement under section 245HA(1)(iv).

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the Settlement Commission dated March 31, 2008, and March 29, 2008, for failing to comply with section 245D(4). The matters were remitted back to the respective Settlement Commission Benches for fresh examination and decision in accordance with the law, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The deposited tax amounts would be subject to the final outcome of the applications under section 245C. The court directed the parties to appear before the Settlement Commission on September 14, 2009.

← Previous Next →