9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised at this stage before the Commission at the stage of Section 245D(4) of the Act. The Commission would consider and pass an order on its merits without in any manner being influenced by this order. This for the reason that the requirement of true and full disclosure on the part of the Applicant should be satisfied at all stages. Moreover, the impugned order of the Commission itself states that it is a primafacie view on consideration of facts and submissions made before it at Section 245D(2C) stage. Delay on the part of the Petitioner is not being considered. However, we only wish to point out that if and when any party is aggrieved by the order of the Commission (particularly interim orders) and it is sought to be challenged, it must ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4] 365 ITR 87 (Bom) (No.2) (hereinafter called ITSC No.2) set aside the order of the Commission passed under Section 245D(2C) of the Act and restored the applications for settlement for fresh consideration by the Commission for deciding its validity on consideration of Revenue's objections. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that the Petition be allowed and the Applications be restored to the Commission at the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act to decide on its validity after considering the Revenue's objections. 4. As against the above, Dr. Shivram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents state that the Petition should not be entertained on the following two grounds:- (i) gross delay in challenging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue of true and full disclosure of income and the manner in which such income has been derived, we are of the opinion that the disclosure of additional income at this stage appears to be prima-facie full and true and at present, there is no material to reject the contention of the applicant company. This aspect would require detailed examination in the subsequent proceedings before us and, therefore, is left open. In the above view, it is submitted that the Petition be dismissed at this stage. 5. The Supreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi and Others 1993 (201) ITR 614 has set out the contours of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India from the orders passed by the Commission. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the contention of the Revenue which it was obliged to do at the stage of passing an order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. Thus, the decision making process was flawed, resulting in the order in ITSC No.2 (Supra) directing the Commission to reconsider and pass an order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. 7. In the present facts, we find that the impugned order of the Commission is similar to an earlier order passed by the Commission in the ITSC (Supra) wherein also a primafacie view was taken to conclude that there is no material to reject the application for settlement at the stage of 245 D(2C) of the Act. The view taken in the present case is on the basis of submissions made by the parties before it and such a view has not been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
