TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Commission itself observed that it was not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper Settlement and even giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and the Department, as laid down in Section 245D(4) of the Act is not practicable - HELD THAT:- Settlement Commission disposed of the application u/s 245, as such, the High Court is absolutely justified in observing that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is a nullity and cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law. Settlement Commission specifically observed that it is not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper Settlement and that even giving adequate opportunity to the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2352-2353 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2023 - M. R. SHAH And C. T. RAVIKUMAR , JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Soumya Dhankani, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Negi, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Balbir Singh, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav AOR Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv. Mr. Rupeder Singhmar, Adv. Ms. Vimla Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. JUDGMENT M. R. SHAH J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission also passed an order that the CIT/AO may take such action as appropriate in respect of the matters, not placed before the Commission by the applicant, as per the provisions of Section 245F(4) of the Act. The Settlement Commission passed the following order:- In the abovementioned cases, the Hon ble High Court of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow has passed orders dated 19.03.2008 directing the Settlement Commission to complete the proceedings u/s 245D(4) by 31.03.2008. 2. The Rule 9 Report in this case has been received. 3. In all, the Principal Bench of the Commission has till 26.3.2008 received more than 325 orders from various High Courts in the month of March, 2008, directing the Principal Bench to complete the cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.59,00,000/- 7. The CIT/AO may take such action as appropriate in respect of the matters, not placed before the Commission by the applicant, as per the provisions of section 245F(4) of IT Act ,1961. 8. Prayer for granting immunity from penalty and prosecution under all Central Acts. In view of the discussions in preceding paras, we grant immunity from prosecution and penalty under the Income Tax Act only as regards issues arising from the application and covered by this Order. 9. Interest leviable, if any, shall be charged as per law. 10. It is settled that the amount of tax along with interest shall be paid by the applicants within 35 days from the date of receipt of intimation from the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant and the Department, as laid down in Section 245D(4) of the Act is not practicable. 3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 31.03.2008 and the manner in which the Settlement Commission disposed of the application under Section 245, as such, the High Court is absolutely justified in observing that the order passed by the Settlement Commission is a nullity and cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law. It is required to be noted that, as such, the Settlement Commission specifically observed in para 5 of the order dated 31.03.2008 that it is not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
