Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (2) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was no order u/s 245D(2B) of the Act, wherein the Commission was under an obligation to call for a report within 30 days HELD THAT:- Section 245D delineates a procedure by which the Commission has to deal with an application under Section 245(C). Within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, a notice has to be issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the application should be proceeded with and after hearing the applicant, the Commission is empowered to either reject the application by order in-writing or allow it to be proceeded with. Sub-section(2A) deals with the situation prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007. Sub-section (2B) requires the Commission to call for a report from the Commissioner, with respe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed Companies; whose Directors were the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is also seen that the request for adjournment made on the ground of the officer being deputed for election duty, was considered and rejected. The Commission has specifically noticed that the report of the Assessing Officer was due on 28.02.2019, while the General Elections were announced only on 10.03.2019. Department s request to take up the case after the General Election was also found to be not permissible since the elections would be over only on 23.05.2019 and the applications were getting time barred as on 31.05.2019. The Department was also represented before the Commission. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the same on the ground of absence of reasonabl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Petitioner : Mrs.Archana Sinha @ Archana Shahi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Kalpana Rastogi, Ad, Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate CAV JUDGMENT PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE The writ petition by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the order dated 20.03.2019 of the Settlement Commission passed in the case of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The challenge is also on the ground that the Income Tax Settlement Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission ) had not considered the Rule 9 report and did not permit the filing of further enquiry report before passing the final order under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Department is also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... decision itself, but, only enables an examination of the procedure; which has been scrupulously followed by the Commission. 5. Section 245D delineates a procedure by which the Commission has to deal with an application under Section 245(C). Within seven days from the date of receipt of the application, a notice has to be issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the application should be proceeded with and after hearing the applicant, the Commission is empowered to either reject the application by order in-writing or allow it to be proceeded with. The proviso deals with an application not considered within the aforesaid period, being enabled to be further proceeded with. Sub-section(2) of Section 245D requires a copy of the order unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with after calling for report from the Commissioner. The Rule 9 report with respect to the applicant was submitted by the office of the Commissioner, which has been dealt with by the Commission. 7. The Commission specifically extracted the objections raised in the Rule 9 report with respect to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were individuals and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Private Limited Companies; whose Directors were the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is also seen that the request for adjournment made on the ground of the officer being deputed for election duty, was considered and rejected. The Commission has specifically noticed that the report of the Assessing Officer was due on 28.02.2019, while the General Elections were announced only o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates