2012 (8) TMI 310 - HC - Income Tax

Petition for writ of mandamus - Held that - As Single Judge has allowed W.P.of assessee partly by order and remanded the matter back to the second respondent Settlement Commission for the limited purpose of reconsidering the question of penalty, prosecution and the order of assessing officer levying penalty in that view of the matter prayer sought for in the present writ petition of mandamus is premature and petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs before the Settlement Commission after orders are passed on such order of remand - thus writ petitions stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seeking mandamus for consequential orders from Settlement Commission orders.
2. Seeking refund of tax, interest, etc., as per Settlement Commissioner's order.
3. Seeking interest for delay in refund issuance.
4. Disputed assessment orders and Settlement Commission proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a banking business, filed income tax returns for 1994-95 to 1999-2000. Assessment orders were issued up to 1997-98, with pending assessments for subsequent years. Disputes arose over additions and disallowed claims for 1997-98, leading to reopening of previous years' assessments. The petitioner then applied to the Settlement Commission under section 245C of the Income Tax Act 1951.

2. The Settlement Commission allowed the application, leading to subsequent orders and rectifications. However, the petitioner faced delays and non-compliance from the assessing officer in implementing the Settlement Commission's orders. Multiple representations were made to the respondents to enforce the orders, seeking directions for timely action and issuance of necessary instructions to the assessing authorities.

3. The High Court noted previous judgments related to the matter, where a writ petition was partly allowed, remanding the issue back to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration of penalty and other matters. The High Court affirmed this decision, stating that the current writ petition was premature. The petitioner was advised to seek appropriate reliefs after the Settlement Commission's reconsideration, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the background, proceedings, and the final decision of the High Court in the case.