9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence, they are heard together and decided by going into the grounds taken in W.P.(T) No. 1623 of 2008. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised by the petitioners, in these bunch of cases, is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court delivered in the case of Star Television News Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 ITR 66 (Bom.) and equally in (2009) 184 Taxman 400 (Bom.). 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue admitted that Bombay High Court in the above judgment, delivered in the case of Star Television News Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors., decided as back as on 7th August, 2009, has not been challenged by the Revenue, to the best of his knowledge. However, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rders were passed, one is dated 23rd August, 1993 under Section 243D(1) and another is dated 22nd December, 1999 under Section 22D(1) of the Act of 1957 respectively and allowed the said two applications of the petitioners to be proceeded with in terms of the said order. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner, through his employee, remained in touch with the office of respondent no. 2, but no date was fixed by the authority for hearing of the two Settlement Applications. The matter was not decided even till the year 2007 and, the Parliament in the year 2007 enacted Finance Act 2007 inserting several new provisions in Chapter XIX-A of the Act of 1961 as well as Chapter V-A of the Act of 1957 and inserted provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 245HA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would be to cause prejudice to the interest of the applicant. Then, it has been held that provisions of Section 245 HA(1)(iv) read with Section 245HA(3) of the Act so read have to be held arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Bombay High Court also considered the various other provisions of the said enactment and so far as issue involved before us is concerned, for that it will be worthwhile to mention here that the Bombay High Court held that in a case there was no fault of the applicant and he himself is not responsible for delay in getting decision on the Settlement Application, in that situation, the application shall not abate. 8. Here in this case a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
