| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0292 (SC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 261 Section 245H
Where the assessee preferred an interim application for early hearing of civil appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CIT [W.A. Nos. 2458 & 3004-3008 of 2010 (T-IT), dt. 6-7-2012] : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 3244 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that as per the provision of section 245D then prevalent, the Settlement Commission on receipt of an application filed under section 245C had to call for a report from the CIT and on the basis of the material contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission was empowered to reject or allow the application to be proceeded with within the prescribed period and it is in this background the granting of immunity from prosecution ought to have been scrutinised by the Settlement Commission which the Single Judge has found not to be so and as such remanded the matter for de novo adjudication which does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality so as to invite the attention of this Court for exercising the appellate jurisdiction which is limited in scope, the Supreme Court ordered the appeal to be listed in the month of April 2019 before the appropriate Bench.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Application for early hearing - Settlement of cases - Immunity from penalty and prosecution--Deliberate finding as to concealment
Assessee preferred an interim application for early hearing of civil appeal against the judgment of Karnataka High Court in ING Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CIT [W.A. Nos. 2458 & 3004-3008 of 2010 (T-IT), dt. 6-7-2012] : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 3244 (Karn-HC), whereby the High Court held that as per the provision of section 245D then prevalent, the Settlement Commission on receipt of an application filed under section 245C had to call for a report from the CIT and on the basis of the material contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission was empowered to reject or allow the application to be proceeded with within the prescribed period and it is in this background the granting of immunity from prosecution ought to have been scrutinised by the Settlement Commission which the Single Judge has found not to be so and as such remanded the matter for de novo adjudication which does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality so as to invite the attention of this Court for exercising the appellate jurisdiction which is limited in scope.Held: The Supreme Court ordered the appeal to be listed in the month of April 2019 before the appropriate Bench.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|