Fateh Singh v. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT|CHANDIGARH CWP179712014 (O&M)Date of decision:2404.2015 Fateh Singh Petitioner| Versus Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench and others ...RespondentsCWP179372014 (O&M) Kesar Singh _..Petitioner VersusIncome Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench and others ...RespondentsCWP179512014 (O&M) Harjit Singh Petitioner| Versus Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench and others ...Respondents CWP179522014 (O&M) Gurinderyjit Singh _..Petitioner Versus Income Tax Settlement Commission, Kolkata Bench and others ...Respondents CORAMHONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALIHON5BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SAANDHAWALI Present: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate, © Mr. Sonat Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners. © Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate,for the respondents.for the respondents. TOR EE S.J. VAZIFDAR, A.C.J. (QRAL) Rule. Rule returnable and heard forthwith. | 2The issue involved in all these petitions is the same. The petitions are,| therefore, disposed of by the common order and judgement. 4The petitioners’ only grievance is that they have not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed by the)Settlement Commission, Kolkata. The matter had been heard indeed at length in|Chandigarh. By letters dated 12.02.2014, the Setthement Commission informed the|petitioners that as the matter was very old and had been pending for more than a)decade, it had to be disposed of without further loss of time. It was also stated that|it was not possible tor the Bench to camp at Chandigarh for the disposal of the|petitioners’ case alone. The Settlement Commission, therefore, fixed 26.02.2014|for further hearing at Kolkata. The petitioners by their advocate’s letter dated|20.02.2014 informed the Settlement Commission that he was travelling abroad in|connection with a family function and, therefore, requested the Settlement|Commission to adjourn the case to 14.03.2014. 4Considering the facts of the case, it was not unreasonable if the hearing|had been adjourned as requested. No prejudice would have been caused by|adjourning the matter by three weeks. Admittedly, the petitioners were not heard|thereafter in Kolkata before the impugned orders were passed. In the facts and_circumstances of the case, the petitioners ought to be granted an opportunity ofbeing heard. In these circumstances, the impugned orders in all the cases are set|aside. The Setthement Commission shall pass a fresh order after affording the|petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners undertake not to make|any further application(s) for adjournment. |5The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. | J4. 04.7015Amodh (S.J. VAZIFDAR)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) |JUDGE