Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 865 - HC - Income TaxSettlement Commission order u/s 245D(4) - absence of any enquiry or investigation in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 245D - HELD THAT:- As per the settled law, the jurisdiction of the Court in examining the correctness of the Settlement Commission's orders in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction is extremely narrow and would be confined to the scrutiny whether the order of the Settlement Commission is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In fact, in such order, the Settlement Commission had also given reasons why further enquiry on investigation was not necessary. Even in absence of any enquiry or investigation in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 245D, the State Commission while passing the order u/s 245D(4), would look into any further evidence which may be brought on record. As observed by this Court in CIT Vs. ITSC [2013 (10) TMI 985 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] such further evidence may as well be produced by the Commissioner. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Commissioner did produce additional material. It was also looked into by the Settlement Commission. Department had neither laid a foundation before the Settlement Commission establishing why further enquiry or investigation ought to have been called, nor led any such grounds before us to demonstrate how the Settlement Commission committed an error in refusing to exercise the discretion, we do not find that the Department had made out a case for interference. It appears that the Department's representative had orally persisted with the Settlement Commission to pass an order u/s 245D(3) of the Act calling upon further enquiry or investigation by the Commissioner which would enable the Department to verify and establish that the disclosures made by the assessees were not true and full. In this petition, the Department had prayed that the Settlement Commission be directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to verify the transactions referred to in objections of the Department contained in the reports under Rules 9 and 9A of the Income Tax Settlement Commission Rules. Essentially, therefore, in such petition, also the Department's case was that the Settlement Commission should have called for or permitted further enquiry or investigation by the Commissioner on the points raised in the reports. It appears that this petition was filed after Settlement Commission passed its final order under Section 245D(4). The Department, was not aware about the development and seems to have proceeded on the basis that settlement proceedings were still pending. Whatever be the bonafide impression of the Department, this petition came to be withdrawn without any further rider. It is not clear whether the petition was withdrawn after arguments or it was withdrawn because the Department came to know about the dismissal of the settlement proceedings and desired to file a fresh petition in view of such material change. In any case, we have not proceeded on the basis of the Department's earlier petition being withdrawn without permission to file a fresh one.
|