Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Chennai Iii v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 488-489 Anna Salai, Chennai – 35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Commissioner of Wealth TaxChennai III121, M.G.Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai – 600 034...Petitionervs 1.The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, 488-489 Anna Salai, Chennai – 35. 2.M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt Ltd., Flat No.A-1, Kumaravijayam, No.99, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari,call for the records of the 1[st] respondent in ApplicationNo.TN/CN3/06-07/1/WT filed by the 2[nd] respondent and quash theorder dated 13.03.2008, as being beyond the scope of itsjurisdiction, and outside the provisions of Chapter VA of theWealth Tax Act read with Chapter XIX of the Income Tax Act. The order passed by the Settlement Commission is underchallenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner is Commissioner of Wealth Tax and theorder passed by the Settlement Commission is mainly challengedon the ground that there was no true and full disclosure by the2[nd] respondent/assessee at the time of filing of an application https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 245(C) of the Income Tax Act. Even duringadjudication, the petitioner/Department could able to establishthat the assessee has not approached the Settlement Commissionwith true and full facts. In spite of the fact that the 2[nd]respondent/assessee approached the Settlement Commission withunclean hands, the Settlement Commission entertained theapplication in violation of the provisions of the Act andfurther, passed an order, which is not in consonance with thepowers conferred to the Settlement Commission under the IncomeTax Act. 3. The learned Senior standing counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner Income Tax Department made a submission thatthe 2[nd] respondent/M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras)Private Limited was the owner of 34.04 acres of immovableproperty situated at Anna Nagar, Chennai, out of which, 2 acreswere sold on 11.09.2002 and 32.04 acres were sold on 02.03.2006.The 2[nd] respondent was assessed to tax by the Assessing Officerworking under the petitioner both under the Income Tax Act andWealth Tax Act. The 2[nd] respondent sold 2 acres of its propertyin the financial year 2002-2003 and the balance 32.04 acres ofproperty in the financial year 2005-06 for a total considerationof Rs.4.68 crores and Rs.206.34 crores respectively. It hadneither filed a return under the Wealth Tax Act nor paid any taxunder the Wealth Tax Act in respect of the land, for the periodprior to its sale. Hence, a notice under Section 17 of theWealth Tax Act was issued for the assessment years 1999-2000 to2005-06. The assessee filed the returns for all the assessmentyears mentioned above. Since the land belonging to the 2[nd]respondent was sold for an amount of Rs.206 crores in the year2005-06, the assessing officer proposed to take the market valueof the land progressively from Rs.100 crores onwards for theperiod 1999-00 to 2005-06. The assessee filed belated returns inresponse to the notice showing the value of the property at avery much lower rate. The 2[nd] respondent did not appear when theAssessing Officer fixed a hearing, but approached the 1[st]respondent / Settlement Commission by filing an application. 4. The learned Senior Standing counsel reiterated that theyhave raised a strong objections before the SettlementCommission, stating that the basic jurisdictional fact of “fulland true disclosure” was absent in the application. Thus, theSettlement Commission did not have the jurisdiction to take upthe application or grant relief and further, filed W.P.No.5498of 2008, challenging the order of admission by the 1[st]respondent. When the said writ petition was taken up for hearingon 19.03.2008, the Vice Chairman of the first respondentSettlement Commission appeared in person and stated before thisHon'ble Court that the Revenue's objections would be taken intoaccount at the time of passing the final order. 5. The learned Senior Standing counsel appearing on behalfof the writ petitioner reiterated that the impugned order, it isseen that the order is dated 13.03.2008. If it were passed priorto the hearing of the writ petition, there was no need for ViceChairman to state that all the objections of the revenue wouldbe taken into account, while passing of the order, and the factthat the order being already passed was not brought to thenotice of this Hon'ble Court at all by the respondents. It wouldgive rise to a presumption that either there wasmisrepresentation before this Hon'ble Court or that the orderwas ante dated. In either case, the validity of the order standsvitiated. 6. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, statingthat the writ petition is nothing but abuse of process of law.The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, is not maintainable as the orders passed by theSettlement Commission under Section 22D(iv) of the Wealth TaxAct cannot be interfered in a routine manner and except onexceptional circumstances. It is contended that the Courtcannot substitute its views in the place of the firstrespondent/Settlement Commission, particularly on the questionof full and true disclosure and complexity of the case. It iscontended that the petitioner has never stated about thecomplexity involved in the present case and the question of lawwarranting interference of the Hon'ble High Court under Article226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition isliable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. 7. The second respondent states that he is the owner of34.04 acres of immovable property situated at Anna Nagar andfurther admitted that the 2[nd] respondent sold two acres of theproperty during the financial year 2002-03 and the remaining32.04 acres of land was sold during the financial year 2005-06for Rs.206.34 crores. The property was sold after obtainingprior permission for sale under Section 281 of the Income TaxAct from the Department. On a notice being served under Section17 of the Wealth Tax Act for the Assessment years 1999-2000 to2005-06, the 2[nd] respondent has filed return of wealth, takinginto consideration the valuation of the property and the variouslitigations pending at the time of valuation of the property.The only dispute is with regard to the valuation of the propertyon the respective valuation dates from the Assessment Years1999-2000 to 2005-06. It is contended that the 2[nd] respondent hadfiled return of wealth taking into consideration the value ofthe property on various valuation dates and also taking intoconsideration several litigations and disputes, which werepending against the said property of their respective valuationdates. 8. Taking into account these aspects, the 2[nd] respondent hadarrived at a fair market value of the property and filed itswealth tax return in pursuant to the notice under Section 17 ofthe Act. However, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to therespondent under Section 17 of the Act, primarily based on thevalue at which the property was sold in 2006 and started tovalue the property as if the property was sold from the year1999-2000 onwards or in other words, the sale value in March2006 (206.34 crores) should be the basis for determining themarket value of the property on various valuation datespertaining from the Assessment year 1999-2000 till 2005-06. 9. The second respondent mainly contended that the writpetition is filed by Income Tax Department on the ground thatthere was no full and true disclosure and there is no complexityin the above case. The 2[nd] respondent states that the applicationwas properly scrutinized based on the informations, details anddocuments submitted by the 2[nd] respondent and accordingly, theSettlement Commission proceeded. The 2[nd] respondent has offeredan additional amount of Rs.60 crores pertaining to theAssessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The additional amount ofRs.60 crores was offered to buy peace and to avoid litigations.The 2[nd] respondent agreed to enhance the value of Rs.25 croresfor the Assessment Year 2004-05 and Rs.35 crores for theAssessment Year 2005-06 over and above the additional amountsdisclosed in the statement of facts filed in those AssessmentYears. It is contended on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent thatoffering additional amounts does not mean that the respondenthad not fully and truly disclosed at the time of filing theapplication. It is contended that the Settlement Commissionafter verifying these basic factors, proceeded with anadjudication and based on the adjudication, the order was passedon merits and therefore, the writ petition is liable to bedismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contendedthat in the eventuality of identifying the fact that theassessee has not disclosed true and full income in theapplication filed under Section 245(C) of the Act, jurisdictionof the Settlement Commission stands ousted and they are estoppedfrom entertaining any such application. Even after admission ofthe application at any stage of the proceedings on account ofthe objections raised or on identification of facts, if theSettlement Commission is able to identify that there was no trueand full disclosure of income or any additional income has beensubmitted by way of filing an additional statement etc., then itis to be construed that the application filed at the initialstage under Section 245(C) of the Act was not with full and truedisclosure and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed in limini. Even regarding the point of maintainability raised bythe respondent/assessee, through the learned Senior counsel thatfacts recorded by the Settlement Commission cannot be disputedand no writ petition can be entertained against the order passedby the Settlement Commission, the judgment of the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income TaxVs. Express Newspaper Limited, reported in [1994] 72 Taxman 438(SC) is relied upon and paragraph 10 is extracted hereunder:“10. Section 245-D prescribes the procedure to befollowed by the Commission on receipt of an applicationunder Section 245-C. Sub-section (1) is relevant forour purpose. As originally enacted, the sub-sectionread as follows:“245D. Procedure of receipt as an application underSection 245-C--(1) On receipt of an application underSection 245-C, the Settlement Commission shall call fora report from the Commissioner and on the basis of thematerials contained in such report and having regard tothe nature and circumstances of the case or thecomplexity of the investigation involved therein, theSettlement Commission may, by order, allow theapplication to be proceeded with or reject theapplication:Provided that an application shall not be rejectedunder this sub-section unless an opportunity has beengiven to the applicant of being heard:Provided further that an application shall not beproceeded with under this sub-section if theCommissioner objects to the application being proceededwith on the ground that concealment of particulars ofincome on the part of the applicant or perpetration offraud by him for evading any tax or other sumchargeable or imposable under the Indian Income TaxAct, 1922 (XI of 1922) or under this Act has beenestablished or is likely to be established by anyincome tax authority in relation to the case.” 11. In the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2010 193 Taxman 193(SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ruled about theentertainability of the writ petition filed by the Income TaxDepartment, challenging the Settlement Commission and further,decided about the manner in which an application to be filedunder Section 245(C) of the Act. Thus, the issues raised in thepresent case also discussed in the above judgment and therelevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:“8. Dissatisfied with the order passed by theSettlement Commission, the Commissioner challenged itby preferring a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. Holding that the Settlement Commission had notgiven any finding as to whether there was full and truedisclosure of the income by the assessee, by a stronglyworded order, dated 28-7-2000, the High Court allowedthe writ petition and set aside the order. Bombay. Holding that the Settlement Commission had notgiven any finding as to whether there was full and truedisclosure of the income by the assessee, by a stronglyworded order, dated 28-7-2000, the High Court allowedthe writ petition and set aside the order. 14. Next, it was urged by the learned SeniorCounsel for the assessee that the High Court erred inentertaining the writ petition filed by theCommissioner under Article 226 of the Constitutionagainst the order passed by the Settlement Commissionbecause: (i) in terms of Section 245-D(1) of the Act,the order made by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of the said section is conclusive as to thematters stated therein and no matter covered by suchorder can be reopened in any proceedings under the Actor under any other law for the time being in force; and(ii) in the absence of any illegality in the procedurefollowed by the Settlement Commission, the power ofjudicial review could not be exercised by the HighCourt to interfere with the findings of fact recordedby the Settlement Commission. To buttress hisproposition that judicial review is concerned only withthe decision-making process and not with the finaldecision, learned counsel referred us to the decisionsof this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi [1993Supp(3)SCC389], R.B.ShreeramDurgaPrasad v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) [(1989) 1 SCC628 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 124] and Shriyans PrasadJain v. ITO [1993 Supp (4) SCC 727] . 16. Shri Raval, on the other hand, supporting theimpugned judgment, submitted that the scheme of ChapterXIX-A does not envisage revision of the applicationfiled by the assessee under Section 245-C(1) of the Actand, therefore, the Settlement Commission committedserious procedural irregularity in permitting theassessee to file revised annexure, declaring higherundisclosed income. Additionally, the learned counselargued that acceptance of such annexure, after theconclusion of hearing on 12-9-1994, behind the back ofthe departmental representative and after theSettlement Commission had reserved its order underSection 245-D(1), was improper and clearly in breach ofprinciples of natural justice and, therefore, the orderpassed by the Settlement Commission on 17-11-1994,deciding to proceed with the application deserves to beset aside. 22. It is clear that disclosure of “full and true”particulars of undisclosed income and “the manner” inwhich such income had been derived are theprerequisites for a valid application under Section 245-C(1) of the Act. Additionally, the amount of incometax payable on such undisclosed income is to becomputed and mentioned in the application. It needslittle emphasis that Section 245-C(1) of the Actmandates “full and true” disclosure of the particularsof undisclosed income and “the manner” in which suchincome was derived and, therefore, unless theSettlement Commission records its satisfaction on thisaspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass anyorder on the matter covered by the application. 27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to beconstrued strictly. In a taxing Act one has to lookmerely at what is said in the relevant provision. Thereis no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be readin, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for anyintendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See CapeBrandy Syndicate v. IRC [(1921) 1 KB 64] and Federationof A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. State ofA.P. [(2000) 6 SCC 550] ) In interpreting a taxingstatute, the court must look squarely at the words ofthe statute and interpret them. Considerations ofhardship, injustice and equity are entirely out ofplace in interpreting a taxing statute. 27. It is trite law that a taxing statute is to beconstrued strictly. In a taxing Act one has to lookmerely at what is said in the relevant provision. Thereis no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be readin, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for anyintendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See CapeBrandy Syndicate v. IRC [(1921) 1 KB 64] and Federationof A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry v. State ofA.P. [(2000) 6 SCC 550] ) In interpreting a taxingstatute, the court must look squarely at the words ofthe statute and interpret them. Considerations ofhardship, injustice and equity are entirely out ofplace in interpreting a taxing statute. 28. As aforestated, in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of anapplication filed under Section 245-C(1) of the Act andthus the natural corollary is that determination ofincome by the Settlement Commission has necessarily tobe with reference to the income disclosed in theapplication filed under the said section in theprescribed form. 31. We are convinced that, in the instant case,the disclosure of Rs. 11.41 crores as additionalundisclosed income in the revised annexure, filed on19-9-1994 alone was sufficient to establish that theapplication made by the assessee on 30-9-1993 underSection 245-C(1) of the Act could not be entertained asit did not contain a “true and full” disclosure oftheir undisclosed income and “the manner” in which suchincome had been derived. However, we say nothing moreon this aspect of the matter as the Commissioner, forreasons best known to him, has chosen not to challengethis part of the impugned order.” 12. The learned Senior standing counsel appearing on behalfof the petitioner solicited the attention of this Court withreference to the application filed by the second respondentunder Section 22(D)(1) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 13. Based on the information provided that the propertymeasuring 32.04 acres in Anna Nagar was sold for a sum ofRs.206.34 crores, the Income Tax Department initiated actionunder Section 133A of the Income Tax Act and a survey wasconducted on 08.03.2006. The survey conducted in the premises ofthe 2[nd] respnodent at Flat No.A1, Kumaravijayam 99, RoyapettahHigh Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 and several documents wereimpounded and statements from one of its directors wererecorded. Copies of these statements and documents impounded areyet to be provided by the Department. In this context, thelearned Senior standing counsel contended that amount of wealth,which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer andthe additional amount of Wealth Tax payable to such wealth isalso elaborated. 14. The order dated 28.12.2006 passed by the AdditionalBench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission made a finding ashereunder: “4. Explaining further it was submitted by thelearned Authorised Representative that decision on thepart of the applicant was primarily motivated by aserious apprehension of high pitched assessments inrespect of the reopened assessments. The entire land inquestion was ultimately sold for Rs.206.34 crores on02.03.2006 to M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited, acompany which is in real estate business and was fundedby H.D.F.C and partly by Anil Ambani and Mukesh AmbaniGroup. In order to determine the market value forwealth tax purposes, the value of the property onvarious valuation dates was the sole consideration.Since the value of the property in question wassubjected to various litigations, value of the propertyhas to be suitably adjusted as the litigations woulddepress the value of the property on differentvaluation dates.” 15. The Commissioner of Income Tax in proceedings dated12.04.2007 submitted a report under Rule 9 of the SettlementCommission Procedural Rules with reference to the AssessmentYears 1999-2000 to 2005-06. The Commissioner in the said reportcategorically stated with reference to the disclosure made bythe 2[nd] respondent, whether full and true in Paragraph 3.1, whichreads as under:“3.1 The value of the flats at Royapettah asmentioned in Para 6 of the Assessing officer's reporthave completely been omitted by the assessee from thecomputation of net wealth in the settlementapplication. Since the flats were not held by theassessee as stock in trade, the value of the flats isincludable in the net wealth. The market value of theflats on hand has been worked out by the AO on the basis of sales near the respective valuation dates andthe value is given in page 8 of AO's report. Theapplicant has no justification for omitting the marketvalue of the said flats from the net wealth and thisfact alone militates against one of the prerequisite ofthe Settlement Application (i.e.) full and truedisclosure. It is requested that in the order underSection 22D(4), the market value of the flats as workedout by the department may be included in the assessee'snet wealth on the various valuation dates.” 16. Without considering the additional wealth offered by thesecond respondent, which has been disclosed before the AssessingOfficer, the Settlement Commission proceeded with the Settlementin violation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and beyondthe jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission. The revisedstatement of facts filed by the 2nd respondent on 22.02.2008would be sufficient to arrive a conclusion that the 2ndrespondent has not filed an application under Section 245(C) ofthe Act with true and full disclosure. The additional statementof facts given during the adjudication of the application beforethe Settlement Commission, raises a doubt regarding the true andfull disclosure and further, the reasonings given by thepetitioner/Income Tax Department in the matter of true and fulldisclosure were not considered by the 2nd respondent. 17. The Settlement Commission without adhering to theprovisions of the Income Tax Act and more specifically, inviolation of the mandatory requirement for entertaining anapplication for settlement, passed the impugned order ofsettlement, knowing fully well that the 2nd respondent has notmade true and full disclosure as mandated under Section 245(C)of the Income Tax Act. 18. The learned Standing counsel solicited the attention ofthis Court with reference to the findings of the SettlementCommission in the impugned order. The petitioner / Commissionerof Income Tax in his written submission dated 20.02.2008,specifically made certain points, which would reveal that thenon-disclosure of wealth by the 2nd respondent came to notice assoon as the application for NOC under Section 281 of the I.T.Actwas made. Thus, there is nothing new disclosed by the 2ndrespondent before the Settlement Commission. The 2nd respondenthas come forward to offer additional wealth at the time ofadmission, which further reinforces the position that thedisclosure made in the application is neither true nor full. The2nd respondent has totally omitted to include another immovableproperty namely the plot at Royapettah in the statement oftaxable wealth. Thus, the 2nd respondent failed to include thisproperty in the return of wealth on the relevant valuation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dates. Thus, omission of this property has also resulted inestablishing that the disclosure made is neither true nor full. 19. The Settlement Commission made the followingobservations in Paragraph 5.2 of the impugned order, which readsas under: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dates. Thus, omission of this property has also resulted inestablishing that the disclosure made is neither true nor full. 19. The Settlement Commission made the followingobservations in Paragraph 5.2 of the impugned order, which readsas under: “5.2 At the admission stage, it was submittedbefore us that the applicant was primarily motivated bya serious apprehension of high pitched assessment inrespect of the reopened assessments. The entire land inquestion was ultimately sold for Rs.206.34 crores on02.03.2008 to M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited. Inorder to determine the market value for W.T.Purposes,the value of the property on various valuation dateswas the sole consideration. Since the value of theproperty in question is subjected to variouslitigations, it has to be suitably adjusted as thelitigations would depress the value of the property ondifferent valuation dates. In para 5,6,7,8 and 9 of theorder Under Section 22D(1) the A.R. pointed out variousimpediments which had the result of depressing thevalue of the property on various dates. In para 11 and12 of the 22D(1) order the arguments and objections ofthe CIT(DR) were narrated. In para 13 of the saidorder, the rejoinder of the A.R. Is given. Other issuessuch as validity of the application were discussed anddealt with. In para 15 of the said order, theconfidential part heard by the Settlement Commissionwas discussed and in para 16,17 and 18 the objectionsof the CIT(DR) were dealt with. Also in para 18 theCommission came to a prima facie view that enhancementof valuation for the A.Y.2004-05 at Rs.25 crores andRs.35 crores for A.Y.2005-06 over and above theadditional wealth disclosed in the SOF filed for theserespective assessment years was adequate.” 20. Pertinently, the Settlement Commission made a findingthat the 2nd respondent had under stated its wealth by notdeclaring the flats at Royapettah. It was argued by the A.R thatthe reasons why these flats were not included in the disclosureat the first instance was that the applicant was under a beliefthat these flats would not form part of net wealth. It wassubmitted that with a view to give quietus to the matter andarrive at comprehensive settlement the 2nd respondent is offeringthe value of these flats as per Schedule 3 of Rule 3 ofW.T.Rules and accordingly, filed a revised Statement of Factsdated 22.02.2008 as per annexure reproduced in Paragraph 6.4.The Settlement Commission made an observation that the 2nd respondent in the spirit of the settlement, offering a sum ofRs.3,59,000/- as an addition to the value to bring the value ofRs.18,59,000/-, which will be the value fixed for acquisitionunder ULCRA. Pertinently, the Settlement Commission concluded bystating that “Considering the Co-operation extended by thesecond respondent in the completion of the present settlementproceedings and the true and full disclosure made, we grantimmunity under Section 245H(1) from the imposition of penaltyand prosecution under the Income Tax Act and relevant sectionsof IPC, relating to the matters covered in the present order.” respondent in the spirit of the settlement, offering a sum ofRs.3,59,000/- as an addition to the value to bring the value ofRs.18,59,000/-, which will be the value fixed for acquisitionunder ULCRA. Pertinently, the Settlement Commission concluded bystating that “Considering the Co-operation extended by thesecond respondent in the completion of the present settlementproceedings and the true and full disclosure made, we grantimmunity under Section 245H(1) from the imposition of penaltyand prosecution under the Income Tax Act and relevant sectionsof IPC, relating to the matters covered in the present order.” 21. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trueand full disclosure must be with reference to the applicationsubmitted by the assessee at the first instance. Submission ofadditional statement of facts providing further disclosure wouldinvalidate the application as the assessee has not filed theapplication with true and full disclosure. Section 245(C) of theIncome tax is clear that the application filed under Section 245(C) must contain true and full disclosure of income. During thecourse of adjudication, if the Income Tax Department is able toestablish that certain details and the properties and documentswere not filed along with the application filed by the assesseeor if the assessee files an additional statement of facts forthe purpose of settlement, then it is to be construed that theapplication under Section 245(C) of the Income Tax Act was notfiled with true and full disclosure, and the disclosures madecannot be trusted upon. Thus, the Revenue must be allowed toproceed with the assessment. 22. In view of the fact that the petitioner could able toestablish that the 2nd respondent has not approached the 1strespondent / Settlement Commission with true and full disclosureof income and during the course of proceedings, offeringadditional income and findings of the Settlement Commissionwould also confirm the same, the said offerings of theadditional income would be sufficient for the purpose ofarriving a conclusion that the 2ndrespondent filed anapplication under Section 245(C) of the Income Tax Act withoutdisclosing true and full income. Thus, to comply with therequirements of the provisions of Section 245(C), there is everyreason to believe that the 2nd respondent / assessee has notapproached the Settlement Commission with clean hands and thus,the Department is empowered to go for further adjudication. Thisbeing the very purpose and object of the condition imposed underSection 245(C) of the Act, there is no reason for the SettlementCommission to get along with the application, which were notfiled with true and full disclosure. Thus, the SettlementCommission has committed an error apparent and allowed theapplication filed by the 2nd respondent in violation of theprovisions of the Income Tax Act. 23. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the 1strespondent in proceedings in Application No.TN/CN3/06-07/1/WTdated 13.03.2008 is quashed and the writ petition standsallowed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarKakToThe Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench,488-489 Anna Salai,Chennai – 35.+1CC to Mr.R.Sivaraman Sr.No.26605+1CC to Mr.A.P.Srinivas Sr.No.26678W.P.No.16788 of 2008LN (CO)A.SK (12.07.2021)