TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9757 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2011 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI, J. K.K. Bissa for the Petitioner. Arun Bhansali for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur bench in CIT v. Anil Hastkala (P) Ltd. [2010] 186 Taxman 365, decided by learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.08.2009, which judgment has been affirmed by the Division Bench in cross appeals filed by the Revenue and Assessee and one such judgment has also been delivered in D.B.S.A.W. No.1000/2009-CIT v. Birdhi Chand Ghanshyam Das, decided on 06.05.2011. 2. The controve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. However, matters are remitted back to the respective settlement commission benches to decide applications of assessees filed U/s 245-C after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and after due compliance of S.245-D(4) of the Act may pass fresh orders in accordance with law without being influenced by observations, made supra, expeditiously keeping in view the fact of matters pendente for sufficient long time. Parties are directed to appear before concerned Settlement commission on 14/09/09. No costs. Sd/- (Ajay Rastogi), J. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Birdhi Chand Ghanshyam Das (supra) (Page 35) has held as under: On facts, it is not in dispute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to record the evidence. No enquiry was made. Thus, in our considered opinion, there is flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 245D(4) of the Act. The orders so passed are rendered nullity and liable to be set aside. Merely by mentioning of certain material without actively assessing what were the statement etc., cannot be said to be compliance of the provisions of Section 245D(4) of the Act. Any finding so recorded in Para 6 of the order without hearing, without investigating and without deeply looking into the record cannot be said to be legal and binding. The procedural safeguards have not been observed as such findings recorded in Para 6 of the orders of these 25 cases also cannot be permitted to survive. The Senior Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch orders may become vulnerable if properly challenged. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision in CIT v. Om Prakash Mittal (supra) to contend that the Settlement Commissioner's power of settlement has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Though the Settlement Commission has sufficient elblow room in assessing the income of the applicant, it cannot make any order with a term of settlement which would be in conflict with the mandatory provisions of the Act like the quantum and payment of tax and interest. The object of the Legislature in introducing section 245C is to see that protracted proceedings before the authorities or in courts are avoided by resorting to settlement of cases. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r meant the Settlement Commission to violate the mandate of the provisions of the Act, it was incumbent upon the Settlement Commission to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It was incumbent upon the Settlement Commission to follow strictly provisions enmerated in Section 245D(4) and other provisions. Consequently, we find that these 25 cases of the assessees are also required to be heard afresh by the Settlement Commission and decided in accordance with law after duly following the mandate of Section 245D(4) of the Act. We are of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the appeals. Consequently, intra-court appeals, cross objections and stay applications are hereby dismissed. Let the Settlement Commission make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
