Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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:
The Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai Nandanam, Chennai-600035 Represented by its Secretary.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
BMV*