SRI. M.K. THIMMIAH vs. THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

PDF · subscribers
WP/10531/2015HC KarnatakaKAHC01001332201508 August 2017Bench: VINEET KOTHARI6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since regular assessment orders had been passed and appeals were pending before the CIT(A), the challenge to the Settlement Commission's order had lost its importance. The court directed the CIT(A) to dispose of the pending appeals expeditiously.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged an order by the Income Tax Settlement Commission rejecting his settlement application. The Commission found the petitioner could not adequately explain the additional income offered for settlement. The petitioner argued the order was non-speaking and lacked proper application of mind.

What were the issues?

Whether the Settlement Commission's rejection order was valid, and if the pendency of regular assessment appeals rendered the challenge to the Settlement Commission's order moot.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 245C,Section 245D(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF AUGUST 2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

WRIT PETITION Nos.10531-10535/2015 (T-IT)

Between:

Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Aged 78 years Son of M.W. Kalappa 1 H, Belvedere Court No.6, Spencer Road Frazer Town, Bangalore-560005.

…Petitioner (By Mr. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate)

And:

1.

The Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600035 Represented by its Secretary.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1) 6th Floor, HMT Bhavan, Bellary Road Ganganagar, Bangalore-560 032.

…Respondents (By Mr. K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

****

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of

Date of Order 08.08.2017 W.P.Nos.10531-10535/2015 Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another

2/6

certiorari, quashing the order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 03-02-2015 under Section 245D(1) of the Act in File No.KA/BL-1/2014-15/34/IT for the Assessment Years 2007- 08 to 2011-12 (Annexure-F) & etc.,

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-

ORDER

Mr. S. Parthasarathi, Adv. for Petitioner - Assessee Mr. K.V. Aravind, Adv. for Respondents

1.

The petitioner - Assessee has filed these petitions challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai (‘Settlement Commission’ for short), on 03/02/2015, Annexure F by which the learned Settlement Commission held that the Applicant could not explain the details of Additional Income offered for settlement and the manner of earning the same and therefore the Settlement Application filed by the Applicant for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2011-2012 could not be allowed to proceed further and thus the Application under Section

Date of Order 08.08.2017 W.P.Nos.10531-10535/2015 Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another

3/6

245-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came to be rejected by the said Settlement Commission.

2.

The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner –Assessee assailing the said order inter alia on the ground that the said order is a non-speaking order and though entire relevant information for settlement was given in the Application filed for such settlement, but without properly applying their mind to the said facts and details, the learned Settlement Commission has rejected the Application summarily.

3.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent – Department has brought to the notice of the Court, to which no objection is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for these Assessment Years, viz. 2007-08 to 2011-12, the Regular Assessment orders have been passed in the meanwhile against the petitioner by the regular

Date of Order 08.08.2017 W.P.Nos.10531-10535/2015 Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another

4/6

Assessing Authorities against which the petitioner has availed the regular remedy by way of an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the said appeals are said to be still pending.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner assessee submitted that almost 50% of the disputed demand for these assessment years stands paid after taking into account the amount deposited with the Settlement Commission.

5.

Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that since the regular assessment procedure has been undertaken by the Assessing Authorities and against the orders passed by the Assessing Authorities, the petitioner has already availed his appellate remedy in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, the challenge to the order passed by the Settlement Commission, rejecting the

Date of Order 08.08.2017 W.P.Nos.10531-10535/2015 Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another

5/6

Application under Section 245-C of the Act, at the threshold on the ground of it being a non-speaking order has out-lived its importance and the matter cannot be now restored back to the Settlement Commission at this stage to hear the merits of the settlement proposals given in the Application by the petitioner –assessee, at that time.

6.

The alternative to the above is to direct the Appellate Authority of the Income Tax Department namely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), where the appeal filed by the petitioner is said to be pending, to dispose of the same on merits expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 7. Till the said appeals are decided by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is expected that the Respondent Department will not take precipitative action against the petitioner for recovery of

Date of Order 08.08.2017 W.P.Nos.10531-10535/2015 Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another

6/6

the balance amount of the tax dues from the petitioner as determined under the impugned assessment orders.

8.

With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

BMV*

More judgments on Section 245C

All 132 judgments and leading authorities on Section 245C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →