9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, if on hearing the parties completely, we come to a view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and restored to the Settlement Commission, it would take up much time, resulting in abatement of the settlement application. This delay in moving the Petition is entirely due to the lackadaisical attitude of the Revenue in not moving this Petition expeditiously, challenging the interim order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. Almost eleven months out of the eighteen months were lost in the Petitioner not moving this Court i.e. from May, 2015 to April, 2016. This coupled with the fact that before the Settlement Commission, the Revenue has after the impugned order proceeded with filing of its report under Section 245D(3) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (the Act) by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Settlement Commission). The impugned order dated 21st May, 2015 of the Settlement Commission held that the application for settlement filed by the petitioner is not invalid at the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act and is allowed to be proceeded with under Chapter XIXA of the Act. Brief facts:- 2. On 27th March, 2015 the Respondent No.2Applicant had filed an application for settlement under Section 245C(1) of the Act with the Settlement Commission. This with a view to settle cases for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15 which were all pending before the Assessing Officer. 3. On 8th April, 2015, the Settlement Commission passed an order under Section 245D(1) of the Act allowing t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing this petition on 12th October, 2015 in the Registry of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners did not have the office objections removed for long. Consequently, it was only on removal of objections that the petition was allotted its regular number in January, 2016. The petition thereafter came up for hearing for the first time on 3rd February, 2016. On that date, it was adjourned at the request of the Respondent-Applicant. On 10th February, 2016, the petitioner sought time to amend the petition. This application for amendment was granted. Thus, the petition was adjourned to 9th March, 2016 for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to carry out the amendment and serve the copy of the amended petition upon the Respondent-Applicant. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is a nonspeaking order as it is passed without considering the important objection as particularized above and urged in the Commissioner's report under Section 245D (2B) of the Act. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the issue be restored to Settlement Commission to pass a fresh order at the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act. 8. As against the above, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Revenue points out that there has been a true and full disclosure of its income on the part of the Respondent-Applicant in its application for Settlement. In any case, the Revenue has not pointed out any failure to disclose primary facts. Rejection of an application for Settlement at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. This is particularly with regard to ₹ 47.82 crores being income till 2010 was indicative of the fact that there was a failure to truly and fully disclose income on the part of the Respondent-Applicant. It is noteworthy that the impugned order dated 21st May, 2015 otherwise, prima facie, does record the other contentions urged in the Commissioner's report as also the context of the Respondent-Applicant's response to the same. Thereafter, it appears to have taken view that the application as filed is not invalid and it should be allowed to be proceeded further. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Commission had while passing the impugned order dated 21st May, 2015 heard the parties i.e. the Commission and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner not moving this Court i.e. from May, 2015 to April, 2016. This coupled with the fact that before the Settlement Commission, the Revenue has after the impugned order proceeded with filing of its report under Section 245D(3) of the Act. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the challenge in this Petition in detail in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. In these facts, it would meet the interest of justice if the Settlement Commission will deal with all the issues of full and true disclosure of income in its order under Section 245D(4) of the Act being raised by the Revenue not only in the Commissioner's Report under Section 245D(2B) of the Act but also under Section 245D(3) of the Act. This is so as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
