Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 845 - HC - Income TaxValidity of order of Settlement Commissioner - scope of judicial review under Article 226 against an order made by the Settlement Commissioner under Section 245C - remand for re-verification by the Settlement Commissioner of advances - HELD THAT:- In Jyothindra Singhji case [1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the enquiry whether by the High Court under Article 226 or before the Supreme Court in the appeal under Article 136 remains the same viz. to consider whether the order of the Settlement Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and if so whether it has prejudiced the petitioner. This is, of course, apart from grounds of lies, fraud and malice which constitute a separate and independent category. A reading of the judgment under appeal discloses that the principle in Jyothindrasinghji is applied by the learned Single Judge in appreciating whether the settlement in Ext.P1 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act or not. Om Prakash Mithal case [2005 (2) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] lays down the object and procedure followed by the Commission in applications arising under Section 245D The procedure followed by the Settlement Commission in the case on hand in appreciating the advances, CFS etc. definitely desires a sort of consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ext.P1 tested on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Mithal the deficiency noted by the judgment under appeal is correct. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in N.Krishnan case [1989 (3) TMI 77 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has stated that the scope of the judicial review is available where there is no nexus between the reasons given and the decision taken. In the case on hand, Ext.P1 could be held to be as not assigning reasons or reflecting the mind of the Settlement Commission for accepting the case of the appellants. The remand is justified in the circumstances of the case. We are also of the view that the scope of judicial review is relatable to the issues on hand both in fact and law in matters arising under Secs.245C & 245D. It is not safe or suggested to convert the scope of judicial review into an abstract application of mathematical principle on abstract reasons and decide a core issue in the matter. The scope of judicial review is certainly a dynamic jurisdiction dependant on the circumstances of each case. In the case on hand the learned Single Judge has objectively and within the scope of review available under Article 226 against the orders made by the Settlement Commission, rightly interdicted and remitted the matter to the Settlement Commission. In the instant intra court appeal, we see no error of jurisdiction in the judgment under appeal. The appeal fails and dismissed.
|