M/S GEHNA ANDORS vs. ASSIT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/1982/2017HC RajasthanRJHC02060112201708 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 20, 2016, passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Court found the conduct of the Settlement Commission to be unacceptable, although it refrained from making specific observations. The Court directed the Interim Board for settlement, constituted under Section 245AA of the Act, to dispose of the application filed by the petitioners. The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners' application. The operative direction is to the Interim Board to decide the application.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s Gehna and its partners/associates, filed an application under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Their application was initially deemed to have abated as the Settlement Commission failed to pass a final order by March 31, 2008. The petitioners challenged this abatement via a writ petition, and on April 25, 2016, the High Court directed the Settlement Commission to complete the proceedings within six months. The Settlement Commission did not adhere to this timeline and, on December 20, 2016, passed an order stating the matter had abated under Section 245HA of the Act due to the expiry of the court-mandated period. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Settlement Commission was justified in abating the settlement proceedings under Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when it failed to complete them within the six-month period stipulated by the High Court's order dated April 25, 2016? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 245HA). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the Settlement Commission's conduct was unacceptable. They relied on the High Court's previous order directing completion within six months and contended that the Commission should have sought an extension rather than unilaterally abating the proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue did not record any specific contentions in the judgment regarding this issue. However, it was noted that the Settlement Commission had been disbanded and an Interim Board constituted under Section 245AA of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245D,Section 245HA,Section 245AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:35815-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017 1. M/s Gehna, 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar Soni 2. Ms. Shalini Soni W/o Shri Upendra Kumar Soni, aged about 46 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan 3. Shri Upendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Soni, aged about 52 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan 4. Shri Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Late Shre Bhuli Lal Soni, aged about 78 years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Circle-Kota Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 08/09/2025

1.

Petitioners are unhappy with the order dated 20th December 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission whereby, petitioners’ application under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be rejected.

2.

Petitioners had filed an application under Section 245D of the Act before the Settlement Commission. That application was held to have abated since the Settlement Commission could not pass a final order before 31st March 2008. Petitioners challenged the automatic abatement by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition

[2025:RJ-JP:35815-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1982/2017] No.8213/2008. The said petition was disposed vide order dated 25th April 2016 whereby, this Court was pleased to direct the Settlement Commission to complete the settlement proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the aforesaid order. The Settlement Commissioner did not complete settlement proceedings within the period of six months and strangely, instead of asking petitioners to get the time extended, passed impugned order dated 20th December 2016 saying that six months period given by the Court has expired and, therefore, the matters are allowed to abate under Section 245HA of the Act.

3.

Though we find that the conduct of the Settlement Commission to be unacceptable, we would restrain ourselves from making any observations.

4.

Mr. Bapna says that Settlement Commission has been disbanded and now there is an Interim Board constituted under Section 245AA of the Act.

5.

In view of above, the impugned order dated 20th December 2016 is quashed and set aside and the Interim Board for settlement constituted under Section 245AA shall dispose the application filed by petitioners.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

We clarify we have not made observations on the merits of the application filed by petitioners. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/4

More judgments on Section 245D

All 104 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →