| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4303 (Pat-HC) : (2020) 317 CTR 0579 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 245D
Revenue was precluded from reopening case of settlement after a period of more than one year on account of a single observation made in the order of Settlement Commission, as revenue did not point any finger of misconduct against any one of the members of the Settlement Commission and order in question was passed in the presence of the revenue and none objected to the same.
|
Settlement Commission - Reopening case of settlement after a period of more than one year - Proceedings not abated -
Revenue sought to reopen case of settlement after a period of more than one year on account of a single observation made in the order of Settlement Commission, wherein it was mentioned that: 'It is not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the cases for proper settlement'. Held: If the Settlement Commissioner had all records before him, revenue duly made its representation, and the Settlement Commission thereinafter accepted the settlement, the only way of reading the sentence was that the matter was straightforward on the face of the record. It was also not disputed that the Settlement Commission necessarily was required to pass orders before prescribed date (31-3-2008), else the proceedings would have abated. Revenue did not point any finger of misconduct against any one of the members of the Settlement Commission. Order in question stood passed in the presence of the revenue and none objected to the same. Stand taken was highly immoral for the authorities to file the instant petition even though enhancement was to the extent of 100 per cent. And the amount deposited in terms thereof was accepted without any protest or demur. All this was for the Settlement Commission to examine if the need so arose.
REFERRED : UOI v. Star Television News Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 528 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 2287 (SC), Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 677, Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. etc. v. CIT (2010) 8 SCC 739 : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2201 (SC), Punjab Roadways Moga through its General Manager v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 235, Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC545, Haryana Financial Corp. & Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 496, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Smt. Asha Goel & Anr. (2001) 2 SCC 160 : 2001 TaxPub(CL) 347 (SC), Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shirke & Ors. v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 6 SCC 622, Champalal Binani v. CIT & Ors. (1971) 3SCC 20 : 1970 TaxPub(DT) 264 (SC), CIT v. Hari Kishan Vijayvergia (2011) 336 ITR 174 (Raj) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1467 (Raj-HC) and CIT v. Anil Hastkala (P.) Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 41 (Raj) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0697 (Raj-HC).
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|