Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1740 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURTValidity and veracity of Income Tax Settlement Commission order - Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioners before this High Court are tenable or not or it should have been filed before the High Court of Kolkata? - Held that:- The writ petition which was filed before the Kolkata High Court by the assessees got dismissed. Since the impugned order under Section 245 D (4) is an independent order passed in exercise of its statutory powers conferred upon the Settlement Commission and where the challenge is on the merits of the order, the Income Tax Department had an option of either approaching the Kolkata High Court or they could have filed it in the High Court of Chhattisgarh which they have done at high Court of Chhattisgarh and which in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be in any manner bad in law or without jurisdiction. Thus, the objection pertaining to the jurisdiction of this High Court does not have much force and the same deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Whether the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commissioner particularly on the basis of the observation in the impugned order of it being practicably not possible to scrutinize the documents on record, can be said to be proper, legal and justified? - Held that:- Once when the Settlement commission itself reaches to the conclusion that it is not practicable for it to examine the record and investigate the case, it ought to have laid its hand off and could have either intimated the Kolkata High Court regarding paucity of time to examine and investigate or could have asked the Department to move an appropriate application for grant of extension of time from the Kolkata High Court. In the absence of either of the steps, closing of a matter and passing an order without examination of the records or without proper investigation would naturally vitiate the entire proceedings which otherwise has a force of law and where the principles of fairness, reasonableness and a judicious approach were mandatorily required. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order would not stand the test of reasonableness. Once when the decision making process itself is found to be in contravention to the statutory provision, it is but natural that the decision would not be a justified order in the eye of law. For the aforesaid reasons this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order as it stands is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Settlement Commission to decide the application of the assesses afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law
|