SARDAR SURJIT SINGH BHATIA vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4454/2008HC BombayHCBM01015910200825 January 2010Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the first respondent (Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai) to hear and dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on merits. The Court relied on the judgment of a Division Bench in Star Television News Limited V/s. Union of India (2009) 27 DTR 50 (Bom) for this direction. The Court clarified that the question of whether there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in cooperating with the first respondent in the disposal of the proceedings is kept open to be decided on facts by the first respondent. The submissions made by the petitioner can be urged before the first respondent and will be considered in accordance with law. No further relief was sought or granted at the hearing of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sardar Surjit Singh Bhatia, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an action or order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC), Mumbai. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The petitioner sought a direction to the ITSC to hear and decide his application filed under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on merits. The application was filed on March 17, 1997, and the first hearing before the Settlement Commissioner was fixed for November 20, 2007. The procedural history indicates a significant delay in the disposal of the application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Income Tax Settlement Commission to hear and decide his application under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on merits, in light of the judgment in Star Television News Limited V/s. Union of India (2009) 27 DTR 50 (Bom)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that based on the Division Bench judgment in Star Television News Limited, the ITSC should be directed to hear and decide his application on merits. He also highlighted the delay, stating the first hearing was fixed on November 20, 2007, despite the application being filed on March 17, 1997. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Income Tax Settlement Commission and others).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245C(1),Section 245HA,Section 245D(4A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4454 OF 2008 Sardar Surjit Singh Bhatia ..Petitioner. V/s. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. N.M. Porwal for petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATED : 25TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. :-

1.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated before the Court that in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Star Television News Limited V/s. Union of India (2009) 27 DTR 50 (Bom), the only relief which is now sought is a direction to hear and decide the application made by the petitioner under section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on merits. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench construing the provisions of section 245HA and section 245D(4A), it would be appropriate and proper for this Court to direct the first respondent to hear and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under section 245C(1) on merits. We clarify that the question as to whether there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in cooperating with the first respondent in

2 the disposal of the proceedings is kept open to be decided on facts by the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the first hearing before the Settlement Commissioner was fixed on 20th November, 2007 though the application was filed on 17th March, 1997. As already noted above, we have not expressed any view, one way or the other, on the question as to whether the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the first respondent in the disposal of the proceedings. The submissions urged before us can be urged before the first respondent and if urged, will be considered in accordance with law. 2. In view of the aforesaid directions, no further relief has been sought at the hearing of the petition, which shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

More judgments on Section 245C(1)

All 56 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →