Hb Leasing Finance Co. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 12(1

$~5 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4423/2014 HB LEASING FINANCE CO. LTD...... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Satyen Sethi and Mr. Arta TranaPanda, Advocates. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 12(1) ..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStanding Counsel. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%08.12.2016 1.The controversy in this petition is regarding the outcome of thepetitioner’s settlement application under Section 245C (1) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’.) The grievance urgedis that the settlement proceedings stood concluded on 10.03.2014 when theChairman of the Commission pronounced an order stating that the casewould revert to the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the non-cooperation ofthe petitioner. The petitioner has urged further that the Member (JS) was ofa contrary opinion, stating that no provision permitted the course of action.A letter dated 03.07.2014 has been relied upon and also impugned by thepetitioner.Its further states that after taking into consideration the entirefacts, the Bench had taken a view that the proceedings before theCommission were not concluded on 10.03.2014. The petitioner urged that even if Members differ from each other on certain issues, then the referenceof the same be made under Section 245 BD of the Act and the differenceswere to be reduced in writing, and that the record would reveal whether itscontention that the matter was relegated to the AO is correct or not. 2.The impugned letter of 03.07.2014 notes the position of the partiesand further states that after the proceedings of 10.03.2014, the Chairman aswell as the Member (JS) had retired. It was under these circumstances thatthe notice called upon the petitioner to be represented in further proceedings. 3.The respondents’ position in the proceedings before this Court is thatthere appears no difference, as stated by the petitioner was, in fact, recorded.Its stated position is also that once a settlement application is made, theapplicant is not permitted to withdraw it.In the circumstances, it seeksdismissal of the petition. 4.During the course of hearing, it was put to the counsel for the partiesthat if the position taken in the proceedings by the petitioner itself is that theproceedings were relegated to the AO for assessment in accordance withlaw, all powers available under the Income Tax Act, can be resorted to in theevent of findings either wholly adverse or partially adverse to the petitionerand in the circumstances, the position of the applicant/petitioner that thematter was, in fact, relegated to the AO, could be given effect to. Learnedcounsel for the respondent submitted that whilst this may be the position inlaw, there is nothing on record to support such a conclusion since, in fact,there is no difference of opinion, as contemplated under Section 245 BB ofthe Act. 5.Having regard to the fact that the settlement application concededlydid not result in any order either accepting the application or rejecting it and further that in the event of rejection, the normal assessments would haveproceeded with, all powers reserved to the AO and the authorites, the Courtis of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in directing theconclusion of settlement proceedings since the petitioner itself stated that thesettlement proceedings culminated in the direction to the AO to complete theassessment in accordance with law. Accordingly, the matter shall be takenup for further proceedings/fresh assessment by the AO uninfluenced by theintervening interregnum and the pendency of the settlement proceedings.The petitioner shall be present through its representative before the AO on19.12.2016. 6.The writ petition is disposed off in the above directions. 7.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for theparties under the signature of the Court Master. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. DECEMBER 08, 2016sb NAJMI WAZIRI, J.