Date Of Order 08.08.2017 W.p.nos.10531 v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. DATED THIS THE 8[th]DAY OF AUGUST 2017| BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.1053 '10535/2015 (T'IT) Between:| Sri. M.K. ThimmiahAged 78 yearson of M.W. Kalappa1 H, Belvedere CourtNo.6, Spencer Road|Frazer Town,Bangalore-560005. _.. Petition (By Mr. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1.The Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, 640, Anna SalaiNandanam, Chennai-600035Represented by its Secretary.Nandanam, Chennai-600035Represented by its Secretary. 2.The Assistant Commissioner otIncome Tax, Circle-1(2)(1)_Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1)_ [th]Floor, HMT Bhavan, Bellary RoadGanganagar, Bangalore-560 032.Ganganagar, Bangalore-560 032. ...Respondents. (By Mr. K.V. Aravind, Advocate) KRREK These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227of 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 1[st]Respondentdated 03-02-2015 under Section 245D(1) of the Act in FileNo.KA/BL-1/2014-15/34/IT tor the Assessment Years 2007-O08 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 thesepetitions challenging the order passed by the IncomeTax Settlement Commission, Chennai (‘SettlementCommission’ for short), on|03/02/2015, Annexure Fby which the learned Settlement Commission held that.the Applicant could not explain the details of AdditionalIncome offered for settlement and the manner otf!earningtheSameandthereforetheSettlement.Application filed by the Applicant for the AssessmentYears 2YOO7-O8 to YJO11-2012 could not be allowed tproceed further and thus the Application under|Section 3/6 245-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961came to be!rejected by the said Settlement Commission. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed bythe petitioner —Assessee assailing the said order)interaltaon the ground that the said order is a non-speakingorder and though entire relevant information forsettlement was given in the Application filed for suchsettlement, but without properly applying their mind tothe said facts and details, the learned SettlementCommission has rejected the Application summarily. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for theRespondent — Department has brought to the notice ofthe Court, to which no objection is raised by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that for theseAssessment Years, VIZ.2007-08 to 2011-12,the|Regular Assessment orders have been passed in themeanwhile 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 Assessing Authorities against which the petitioner hasavailed the regular remedy by way of an appeal beforethe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) andthe said appeals are said to be still pending. 4The learned counsel for the petitionerassessee submitted that almost 50% of the disputeddemand for these assessment years stands paid aitertaking into account the amount deposited with theSettlement Commission. 5Having heard the learned counsels, thisCourt is of the opinion that since the regularassessment procedure has been undertaken by theAssessing Authorities and against the orders passed bythe Assessing Authorities, the petitioner has alreadyavailed his appellate remedy in accordance with theprovisions of the said Act, the challenge to the orderpassed 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 4The learned counsel for the petitionerassessee submitted that almost 50% of the disputeddemand for these assessment years stands paid aitertaking into account the amount deposited with theSettlement Commission. 5Having heard the learned counsels, thisCourt is of the opinion that since the regularassessment procedure has been undertaken by theAssessing Authorities and against the orders passed bythe Assessing Authorities, the petitioner has alreadyavailed his appellate remedy in accordance with theprovisions of the said Act, the challenge to the orderpassed 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 thethreshold on the ground of it being a non-speakingorder has out-lived its importance and the mattercannot be now restored back to the Settlement|Commission at this stage to hear the merits of thesettlement proposals given in the Application by thepetitioner —assessee, at that time. 6. The alternative to the above is to direct theAppellate Authority of the Income Tax Departmentnamely Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), wherethe appeal filed by the petitioner is said to be pending,to dispose of the same on merits expeditiously as far aspossible, preferably within a period of six months fromtoday. 7. Till the said appeals are decided by the learnedCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it 1s expectedthat|theRespondentDepartmentwil]NOTtakeprecipitative action against the petitioner for recovery of Sri. M.K. Thimmiah Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission & another 6/6 the balance amount of the tax dues from the petitioneras determined under the impugned assessment orders.| 8. With these observations, the writ petitionsstand disposed of. No order as to costs. BMV Sd/-.JUDGE|