The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs The Settlement Commissioner (It & Wt), ... on 10 April, 2014
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
Settlement Commission and to settle the disputes between the taxpayer
and the department in an amicable manner. As a matter of fact, the
recent legislative efforts in bringing Section 268A of the Act and in
issuing various circulars whereby restraining the department officials to
file appeals and further appeals in all and sundry cases recognising
futility of such exercise may be noticed. A close perusal of the order
passed by the Settlement Commission, both at the stage of admission
and also at the stage of passing of the final order, we find, as a matter
of fact, ample opportunity was given to the Department to file their
objections and also the representatives of the department were heard
before passing the orders and in that view of the matter, we are unable
to concur with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the order is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural
justice. Inasmuch as we are satisfied that it was within the discretion
of the Settlement Commission at the stage of Section 245D(1) of the Act
to admit a case for consideration 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. This becomes clear from the law laid down in catena of
judgments with reference to the restricted scope of interference by the
Courts even with the final orders of the Settlement Commission. In that
view of the matter, we do not see any reasons to order the amendment
petition. Accordingly, the W.P.M.P.No.28188 of 2002 is dismissed.