SHARADA KASLIWAL vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

PDF · subscribers
WP/12472/2015HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01037020201523 September 20154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Settlement Commission had not granted a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and had decided the application in a hurried manner, which is not in accordance with the requirements of the law. The Tribunal found that the assertions made in the petition, supported by the Chartered Accountant's letter and the representative's affidavit, indicated a lack of due process. Citing the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in *Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harikishan Vijayvargiya and others*, the Tribunal emphasized that an application for settlement under Section 245C must be decided after giving a proper opportunity of hearing, conducting an inquiry, and demonstrating application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration in accordance with the law, with a direction to provide due opportunity for representation and submission to the petitioner. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sharada Kasliwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated May 8, 2015, passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Mumbai. The ITSC had rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the ITSC failed to provide a proper opportunity for hearing, making submissions, and conducting a thorough inquiry as required by the statute. The petitioner alleged that the ITSC disposed of the matter in a hurried manner, citing a letter from the petitioner's Chartered Accountant and an affidavit from the petitioner's representative detailing the proceedings on the date of the order. The petitioner relied on a Rajasthan High Court judgment to support their contention that the application was not properly decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Settlement Commission provided a proper opportunity of hearing and inquiry to the assessee before rejecting the application filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 245C). Assessee's Contentions: - The Settlement Commission did not adhere to the statutory requirement of providing a proper opportunity for making submissions, arguments, and conducting a deep inquiry. - The application was disposed of in a hurried manner, as evidenced by the Chartered Accountant's letter and the affidavit of the petitioner's representative. - Relied on the Rajasthan High Court judgment in *Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harikishan Vijayvargiya and others*, 2011 Vol.336 ITR 174. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue's counsel attempted to refute the assessee's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WP-12472-2015 (SHARADA KASLIWAL Vs INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION) 23-09-2015 Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai, rejecting an application filed by the applicant in case No.MP/BHCC/100/2014-15/IT. Primarily, the grievance of the petitioner is that the Settlement Commission did not hear the application filed under Section 245(c) of the Income Tax Act in accordance to the requirement of the statute that is proper opportunity of making submission, argument and making deep enquiry was not entered into. It is said that the issue averred in the affidavit of the counsel himself appearing for the Commission on 8.5.2015, that the Commission disposed of the matter in the manner as is indicated in the letter submitted by the Chartered Accountant who appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Commission in the application Annexure P-7 available at page 164. In the said application a detailed assertion is made with regard to the proceedings that took place on the said date, the facts of more than 5 to 6 cases of the applicant is heard and being taken, paucity of time and in the manner in which the application is rejected by highlighting these facts which is supported by affidavit of the Chartered Accountant and the representative himself filed as annexure P-8. It is said that the opportunity of hearing and proper enquiry in accordance with the requirement of law was not undertaken and by placing reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harikishan Vijayvargiya and others, 2011 Vol.336 ITR 174 Rajasthan, it is emphasized by Shri Sumit Nema that the application has not been properly decided. Even though Shri Sanjay Lal, counsel for the respondents tried to refuse the aforesaid contention but on going through the assertion made in the petition as is indicated herein above, the manner in which the order is passed and after considering the law laid down and the observations made by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harikishan Vijayvargiya (supra) particularly, the observations and findings recorded in para 20 onwards, we find, that the requirement of law is that an application filed for settlement in accordance with the provision of Section 245 (c) has to be decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assesse concerned, conducting an enquiry as envisaged therein and after showing application of mind in the decision taken. the manner in which the application has been filed and has been decided in the present case is evaluated in the backdrop as are available in the Annexure P-7, which is supported by the affidavit of the representative of the assesse himself, we find that proper opportunity has not been granted and in a hurried manner the application has been decided. This being not the requirement of law, we allow this petition and quash the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Settlement Commissioner for taking action in accordance with law. The application already filed which is pending be heard and decided in accordance to law after giving due opportunity of representation and submission to the petitioner. We may observe that we have not made any observation on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. We have only remanded the matter for reconsideration after giving opportunity of hearing. It is exclusively for the Settlement Commission to go into the merits of the case and to settle the matter and decide it in accordance with law With the aforesaid the petition is allowed and disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE (C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE

More judgments on Section 245C

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →