Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)

Patel Desai And Co. And Meera Industries vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 24 March, 1992

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.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - P V Reddi - Full Document

C.I.T vs Express Newspapers Ltd on 11 January, 1994

Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Revenue on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Express Newspapers Ltd., . We are afraid, would not advance their case in any manner. On a close scrutiny of the said judgment, the same would reveal that in the peculiar facts of that 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 27.09.1991. The Sub Section 1A of Section 245D of the Act which has been omitted may be noticed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 117 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next