9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tlement Commission dated 28.08.2017. The petitioners had filed applications for settlement for the block period way back in the year 2003. When these applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, certain amendments were made in the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) in the chapter pertaining to settlement of cases by virtue of which a settlement application would abate if not disposed of within prescribed time. The petitioners approached the High Court by filing various individual petitions contending that by virtue of operation of these statutory provisions, their settlement applications are likely to abate shortly. They have not attributed to any delay in disposal of the settlement applications. The statute w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot come in the way of the Settlement Commission in disposing of the matters before it in accordance with law. 8. Liberty to revive the petitions in case of necessity, upon filing a note before the Registry." 2. After this order was passed by the High Court, two important developments took place. The Supreme Court disposed of the case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) by an order dated 11.03.2011 allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Thus, the proceedings before the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal (supra) came to be disposed of without a decision on the controversy at hand. The second important development was that the Bombay High Court in case of Star Television News Ltd. v. Union of India and others reported in [2009] 317 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Prabhu Dayal (supra) and no relief was granted by the Supreme Court in such case. This was the only ground on which the applications have been closed. 4. Before proceeding further, we may record that by the same impugned order, the Settlement Commission has also rejected the application for settlement of another assessee M/s. M. Kantilal & Co. who is a petitioner of Special Civil Application No.20442 of 2017. We have consciously not included this petition for common disposal under this judgment since facts in the said case are somewhat different. The Settlement Commission has rejected the case on an additional ground of nonpayment of full tax with interest over and above the question of abatement of proceedings. 5. In the present gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther hearing, it was obliged to apply such law. If the proceedings were delayed due to the reasons attributable to the applicants, the provision for abatement would apply but not otherwise. The Settlement Commission has not recorded any such finding. The department has not brought any facts to our notice to permit any further inquiry in this respect by the Settlement Commission. In plain terms therefore there is no material before us to hold that the application for settlement of the present petitioners were belated due to the reasons attributable to the petitioners. 6. In the result, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission is set aside. The proceedings are revived and placed back before the Settlement Commission for disposal in ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
