TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration based on the prima facie view, the aspect of admission of a case by the Settlement Commission except in exceptional circumstances cannot be the subject matter of a judicial review. Thus no reasons to order the amendment petition or to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the first respondent-Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act admitting the case which in fact fructified into a final order, given effect to and implemented as long as on December 29, 2000.- Decided against revenue. - WRIT PETITION No.25229 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2014 - SRI G. CHANDRAIAH AND SRI CHALLA KODANDA RAM, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri J.V.Prasad For the Respondent : Smt Kiranmayai, Sri A.V.Krishna Kaundinya JUDGMENT Challa Kodanda Ram J.- The writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the order dated February 25, 2000, passed by the Settlement Commission (IT WT), Additional Bench, Chennai/first respondent in S. A. No. 520/VIJ/40/99/IT, whereby the first respondent admitted the application filed by the second respondent for the purpose of considering the same under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-first respondent, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. This counter- affidavit was filed by the second respondent on August 17, 2001. Thereafter, W. P. M. P. No. 28188 of 2002 came to be filed before this court on November 1, 2002, praying the court to amend the prayer in the main writ petition by inserting after the words violative of the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same add before the words and to pass such order or orders the following words and, consequently, set aside the order dated November 20, 2000, passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act . 4. In the affidavit sworn by one A. R. Reddy, S/o. A. Venkata Rami Reddy, Commissioner of Income-tax, Guntur, it is stated that we understand that the first respondent passed the final orders under section 245D(4) of the Act on the second respondent's application on November 20, 2000, even before filing of the writ petition on December 18, 2000. It is further stated that the copy of the said order was received in the office on December 21, 2000, i.e., after filing of the writ petition and passing of the interim orders in W. P. M. P. No. 32185 of 2000. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same ought to have been ignored by the Settlement Commission ; the contention of the second respondent that the writ petition has become infructuous is liable to be rejected as the challenge in the writ petition is to the case being admitted for consideration under section 245D(1) of the Act which itself is irregular ignoring the specific objections raised by the Department, the mere passing of the final order under section 245D(4) of the Act is of no consequence ; and as a matter of fact, an amendment petition, vide W. P. M. P. No. 28188 of 2002 challenging the final order dated February 25, 2000, and the same is listed along with the main writ petition and the learned counsel for the Revenue would finally pray for the court to allow both the W. P. M. P. No. 28188 of 2002 as well as the main writ petition. 7. The learned counsel, appearing for the second respondent, opposed for ordering of W. P. M. P. No. 28188 of 2002 and would submit that one of the grounds on which the amendment has been sought is violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. He would point out the orders passed by the Settlement Commission both at the stage of section 245D(1) and section 245D(4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case while analysing the provisions of sections 245C and 245D of the Act, as then existing, the court came to interfere with the orders of the Settlement Commission. Further, one noticeable thing which requires specific mention is about omission of sub-section (1A) in section 245D of the Act with effect from September 27, 1991. Sub-section (1A) of section 245D of the Act which has been omitted may be noticed as under : (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), an application shall not be proceeded with under that sub-section, if the Commissioner objects to the application being proceeded with on the ground that concealment of particulars of income on the part of the applicant or perpetration of fraud by him for evading any tax or other sum chargeable or imposable under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, has been established or is likely to be established by any Income-tax authority, in relation to the case : Provided that where the Settlement Commission is not satisfied with the correctness of the objection raised by the Commissioner, the Settlement Commission may, after giving the Commissioner an opportunity of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The main limb of sub-section (1) and the first proviso, however, remained untouched. In place of the second proviso, sub-section (1A) was introduced. The effect of this amendment was that the Commissioner's objection ceased to be final and conclusive. The proviso to sub-section (1A) empowered the Commission to examine whether the objection of the Commissioner was correct or not. After hearing the Commissioner, if the Commission was satisfied that the objection of the Commissioner was not correct, it could proceed with the application . 11. As a matter of fact, what all is required by the Settlement Commission at the stage of entertaining the application is whether a prima facie case is made out or not and in that context only subsequent amendments which have been brought in sections 245C and 245D of the Act had dispensed with even issuing a preliminary notice to the Commissioner of Income-tax leaving it to the absolute discretion of the Settlement Commission to entertain a case or not for its consideration. The reasons for giving such discretion to the Commission cannot be lost sight particularly keeping in view of the objects of establishment of the Settlement Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
