9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication, prima facie appears to be incorrect. In the above view, the Assessing Officer is restrained from issuing notices and initiating proceedings under the normal provisions of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15. See Airtech Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus Income-tax Settlement Commission [1994 (6) TMI 192 - INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION] - Writ Petition No. 2139 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha and A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. Jitendra Jain a/w Mr. Sumit Patni, Mr. Som Sinha i/b Som Sinha for the petitioner Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. Heard. Rule. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 29th July, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, they could have requested the Chairperson of the Commission to consider constituting a Special Bench of more than five members and refer the issue to it. Consistency, certainty and equal application of law are all basic constituents of Rule of Law. In its absence, the Commission would become a body deciding matters on discretion alone leading to break down of Rule of Law. Thus, prima facie, the Commission could not have refused to settle the dispute for the Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 in the face of the decision of the Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which was binding upon the three member bench of the Commission which passed the impugned order. 4. Moreover, it an admitted position before us that consequent to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by the Revenue. 6. It is further submitted by the petitioner that an application for settlement is only one though it may consists of more than one assessment years. Consequently, as held by the Special Bench in Airtech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there is no requirement of any additional income being disclosed for each of the assessment years for which an application has been filed. Thus, either all the Assessment Years mentioned in the application are to be settled or none at all. It cannot be split so as to settle the dispute for one of the Assessment Years and reject the others. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Commission to the extent it has rejected / not entertained, the petitioner's application for settlement for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
