2017 (11) TMI 735 - HC - Income Tax

Correctness of order passed by the Settlement Commission - entire amount of additional income, except the additional income, offered in the two applications before the Commission, should be held as assessable in the regular assessment for the assessment years covered in the first application - Held that - This issue has now become academic as in the assessee s own case, the revenue viz., the petitioner herein, filed Special Leave to appeal challenging the order dated 30.01.1996, passed under Section 245 D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by entertaining the application for settlement of the cases arising out of the assessment for the years 1987-88 to 1996-97 and 1990-91 to 1996-97 respectively. The petitioner/revenue cannot once again re-agitate the very same issue before this Court as the matter has attained finality. It is not in dispute that the revenue has not questioned the order of the Settlement Commission, so far as the settlement of the cases of the assessees in respect of the block assessment ending 06.11.1996. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the challenge to the impugned proceedings has become academic and unnecessary.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Settlement Commission regarding the additional income assessable in regular assessment and block assessment.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central III, Chennai, challenged the order passed by the Settlement Commission regarding the additional income assessable in regular assessment and block assessment. The assessees filed applications for settlement covering specific assessment years, which were entertained by the Commission. Subsequently, after search and seizure operations, assessments were made for both assessees for a specific period. The revenue contended that the first application for regular assessment should not have been entertained along with the application for settlement of block assessment cases. The revenue filed Special Leave to appeal challenging the order passed by the Settlement Commission. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals related to block assessments and the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission, stating that the term 'case' includes block assessments in search cases. The revenue cannot re-agitate the same issue as it has attained finality, and the Settlement Commission's order regarding block assessments has not been questioned by the revenue. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned proceedings has become academic and unnecessary.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the challenge to the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission has become academic and unnecessary due to the finality of the matter and the Supreme Court's decision regarding block assessments. The revenue cannot re-agitate the issue, and the writ petitions were closed with no costs.