2013 (5) TMI 362 - HC - Income Tax

Assessment proceedings scope of judicial review against the order of Settlement Commission - Commission recorded that there was over-all non-cooperation on the part of the applicants at all stage and that no material has been furnished by the applicants on the basis of which a reasonable order of settlement can be passed. Held that - The applications for settlement were filed in 1983, but the detention order came to be passed after five years. Assessee was required to co-operate from the date of filing of the application and also produce material on the basis of which settlement can be arrived at. Neither the petitioners have furnished sufficient material before the Commission nor co-operated with the Commissioner to furnish report, therefore, the reasoning given by the Commission cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. The scope of judicial review against the order of Settlement Commission has been delineated in M /s R .B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) 1989 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court - Thus, there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Commission. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 17.7.1989.
2. Recall of order based on alleged non-cooperation due to detention of a member.
3. Delay in filing statement of facts and non-cooperation by petitioners.
4. Scope of judicial review of Settlement Commission's orders.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed multiple writ petitions challenging the order dated 17.7.1989 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Commission dismissed 16 applications filed by the Anand Group in March 1983 under the Income Tax and Wealth Tax Acts, citing overall non-cooperation by the applicants and lack of material for a settlement order. The petitioners later sought to recall the order based on a member's detention under the 1974 Act, claiming no willful non-cooperation. However, the court found the petitioners' claim untenable as the applications were filed in 1983, while the detention occurred in 1988, emphasizing the requirement for cooperation from the application filing date.

2. The petitioners' plea for recall was based on the detention of a group member in 1988, implying no willful non-cooperation. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the need for cooperation and material submission from the application date. The court highlighted that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient material or cooperate with the Commission, leading to the dismissal of their applications. The judgment referenced the scope of judicial review concerning the legality of the procedure followed by the Settlement Commission, emphasizing the focus on the decision-making process rather than the decision's validity.

3. The court noted a significant delay in filing the statement of facts by the petitioners, which was submitted over a year after the initial notice. Additionally, the Deputy Director of Investigations reported that requested information was not provided despite multiple opportunities. This delay and lack of cooperation were crucial factors leading to the Commission's decision to dismiss the applications. The court upheld the Commission's findings, emphasizing the importance of timely cooperation and material submission in settlement proceedings.

4. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review regarding Settlement Commission orders. The court emphasized that interference with the Commission's decision is only warranted if it contravenes the provisions of the Act. Citing established legal principles, the court concluded that no illegality or irregularity was found in the Commission's orders, warranting dismissal of the writ petitions. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and cooperation in settlement proceedings to ensure a fair and lawful decision-making process.

← Previous Next →