WP-12465-2015
(PARTH KASLIWAL Vs INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION)


21-09-2015
Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for respondent.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order dated
8.5.2015 passed by Income Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai,
rejecting application filed by applicant in case
No.MP/BHCC/103/2014-50/IT.
Primarily, grievance of petitioner is that Settlement
Commission did not hear application filed under Section 245(c) of the
Income Tax Act in accordance to requirement of statute that is
proper opportunity of making submission, argument and making deep
enquiry was not entered into. It is said that issue averred in the
affidavit of counsel himself appearing for Commission on
8.5.2015, that Commission disposed of matter in manner as
is indicated in letter submitted by Chartered Accountant who
appeared on behalf of petitioner before Commission in the
application Annexure P-7 available at page 164. In said application a
detailed assertion is made with regard to proceedings that took
place on said date, facts of more than 5 to 6 cases of the
applicant is heard and being taken taken, paucity of time and in the
manner in which application is rejected by highlighting these facts
which is supported by affidavit of 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
judgement of Rajasthan High Court in case of Commissioner of
Income Tax vs. Harikishan Vijayvargiya and others, 2011 Vol.336 ITR 174
Rajasthan, it is emphasised by Shri Punit Nema that application has
not been properly decided.
Even though Shri Sanjay Lal tried to refuse aforesaid contention but
on going through assertion made in petition as is indicated
herein above, manner in which order is passed and after
considering law laid down and observations made by the
Rajasthan High Court in case of Harikishan Vijayvargiya (supra)
particularly, observations and findings recorded in para 20 on wards,
we find, that requirement of law is that application filed for
settlement in accordance with provision of Section 245 (c) has to be
decided after giving proper opportunity of hearing to assessee
concerned, conducting enquiry as envisaged therein and after
showing application of mind in decision taken. manner in which
the application has been filed and has been decided in present case
is evaluated in backdrop as are available in Annexure P-7, which
is supported by affidavit of representative of assessee
himself, we find that proper opportunity has not been granted and in a
hurried manner application has been decided. This being not the
requirement of law, we allow this petition and quash impugned order
and remand matter back to learned Settlement Commissioner for
taking action in accordance with law. application already filed which
is pending be heard and decided in accordance to law after giving due
opportunity of representation and submission to petitioner.
We may observe that we have not made any observation on merits
of claim made by petitioner. We have only remanded matter
for reconsideration after giving opportunity of hearing. It is exclusively
for Settlement Commission to go into merits of case and to
settle matter and decide it in accordance with law
With aforesaid petition is allowed and disposed of.

(RAJENDRA MENON) (C V SIRPURKAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
PARTH KASLIWAL v. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION