2017 (9) TMI 1740 - HC - Income Tax

Validity and veracity of Income Tax Settlement Commission order - Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners before this High Court are tenable or not or it should have been filed before the High Court of Kolkata? - Held that - The writ petition which was filed before the Kolkata High Court by the assessees got dismissed. Since the impugned order under Section 245 D (4) is an independent order passed in exercise of its statutory powers conferred upon the Settlement Commission and where the challenge is on the merits of the order, the Income Tax Department had an option of either approaching the Kolkata High Court or they could have filed it in the High Court of Chhattisgarh which they have done at high Court of Chhattisgarh and which in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be in any manner bad in law or without jurisdiction. Thus, the objection pertaining to the jurisdiction of this High Court does not have much force and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Whether the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commissioner particularly on the basis of the observation in the impugned order of it being practicably not possible to scrutinize the documents on record, can be said to be proper, legal and justified? - Held that - Once when the Settlement commission itself reaches to the conclusion that it is not practicable for it to examine the record and investigate the case, it ought to have laid its hand off and could have either intimated the Kolkata High Court regarding paucity of time to examine and investigate or could have asked the Department to move an appropriate application for grant of extension of time from the Kolkata High Court. In the absence of either of the steps, closing of a matter and passing an order without examination of the records or without proper investigation would naturally vitiate the entire proceedings which otherwise has a force of law and where the principles of fairness, reasonableness and a judicious approach were mandatorily required. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order would not stand the test of reasonableness. Once when the decision making process itself is found to be in contravention to the statutory provision, it is but natural that the decision would not be a justified order in the eye of law. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order as it stands is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Settlement Commission to decide the application of the assesses afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the writ petitions.
2. Legality and propriety of the order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court:

The primary issue was whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners before the High Court of Chhattisgarh were tenable or should have been filed before the High Court of Kolkata. The court noted that the business premises of respondent no.2 were located in Chhattisgarh, and the search and seizure proceedings were conducted there. The assessment proceedings were also within the territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh. The court concluded that since the assessment proceedings and part of the cause of action arose in Chhattisgarh, the petitioners had the option to file the writ petitions either in the High Court of Kolkata or Chhattisgarh. Thus, the objection regarding jurisdiction was rejected.

2. Legality and Propriety of the Order by the Settlement Commission:

The second issue was whether the order passed by the Settlement Commission was proper, legal, and justified. The court examined whether the Settlement Commission followed the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Income Tax Act.

The court noted that the Settlement Commission, in its impugned order, stated that it was not practicable to examine the records and investigate the case for proper settlement due to the direction from the High Court of Kolkata. The court emphasized that the High Court of Kolkata had directed the Settlement Commission to dispose of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which required proper examination and investigation of records.

The court highlighted that the Settlement Commission had shown haste in concluding the proceedings without examining the records or investigating the case. The court found that the Settlement Commission's decision-making process was in contravention of the statutory provisions, lacked proper application of mind, and did not follow a judicious approach.

The court also pointed out that the Settlement Commission should have either informed the Kolkata High Court about the impracticality of examining the records within the given time or sought an extension. The failure to do so and the subsequent passing of the order without proper investigation vitiated the entire proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission was not sustainable in law. The order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Settlement Commission for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with the law. The court expected the Commission to take a prompt and expeditious decision considering the long pendency of the settlement application.