Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner(S v. Income Tax Settlement Commission - Respondent(S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10108 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA =========================================================1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ? 2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]? ========================================================= MAHAVIR INDUCTOMELT PVT. LTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RK PATELfor Petitioner(s) : 1,None for Respondent(s) : 1,========================================================= CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA Date : 07/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ) SCA/1010820/2008 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Settlement Commission on 24.1.2007 and 9.1.2008 and seeking direction to the Settlement Commission to pass denovo order under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after considering the petitioner's submission dated 12.2.2007 filed in accordance with the permission of the Settlement Commission and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the Revenue. The petitioner has also prayed for the direction to the Settlement Commission for passing appropriate orders in the case of the petitioner Company in consonance with the orders passed by the Settlement Commission in the case of Directors on similar facts and circumstances of the case by directing the Settlement Commission to compute the unaccounted sales SCA/1010820/2008 as undisclosed income by granting deduction of cost of purchase price and taxing the net income and further directing to pass specific order on levy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that search took place on 20.9.1995. The search took place on 20.9.1995. The petitioner filed its return for the block period on 22.5.1996. Thereafter, the period on 22.5.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Settlement Application under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.9.1996. The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the block period on 30.9.1996. The application was admitted by 30.9.1996. The application was admitted by the Settlement Commission and order was passed under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.5.1998. Final hearing was fixed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act on 10.11.2006. It Section 245D(4) of the Act on 10.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the SCA/1010820/2008 petitioner has to file written submissions, but before written submissions were filed the order was passed under Section 245D(4) on 24.1.2007 whereas the written submissions but before written submissions were filed the order was passed under Section 245D(4) on 24.1.2007 whereas the written submissions were filed by the petitioner on 12.2.2007. The grievance of the petitioner was that there was no specific time limit for filing there was no specific time limit for filing passed under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26.5.1998. Final hearing was fixed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act on 10.11.2006. It Section 245D(4) of the Act on 10.11.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the SCA/1010820/2008 petitioner has to file written submissions, but before written submissions were filed the order was passed under Section 245D(4) on 24.1.2007 whereas the written submissions but before written submissions were filed the order was passed under Section 245D(4) on 24.1.2007 whereas the written submissions were filed by the petitioner on 12.2.2007. The grievance of the petitioner was that there was no specific time limit for filing there was no specific time limit for filing the written submissions and the petitioner was given to understand that the copy of the written submissions should be served on the was given to understand that the copy of the written submissions should be served on the department and if there is any rebuttal the same should also be filed by the department thereafter in the matter. same should also be filed by the department thereafter in the matter. 3. Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed written submissions on 12.2.2007, by that time copy of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 24.1.2007 was not received by the petitioner and hence the petitioner was under the belief that the order was not passed. He has, petitioner filed written submissions on 12.2.2007, by that time copy of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 24.1.2007 was not received by the petitioner and hence the petitioner was under the belief that the order was not passed. He has, SCA/1010820/2008 therefore, submitted that the impugned order is passed by the Settlement Commission without considering the written submission. 4. Mr.Patel further submitted that the petitioner has moved Misc. Application pointing out defects in the order and also pointing out that the written submissions were not considered. The said application is also rejected. The petitioner has, also rejected. The petitioner has, therefore, filed present petition before this Court. 5. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and having considered the averments made in the petition as well as documents attached therewith, we are of the view that there is no substance in the present petition. First of all, the petitioner has filed written submissions after the period of three months. If the Settlement Commission has directed the SCA/1010820/2008 6/7 petitioner to file written submissions the same should have been filed within reasonable time period. The Settlement Commission passed an order on 24.1.2007, before that written submissions were not filed by the petitioner. Since the written submissions were not filed there is no question of rebuttal and there is also no question of giving any further hearing in the matter. All other aspects raised by the petitioner in the present petition are considered by the Settlement Commission in its order dated 24.1.2007 as well as subsequent order passed in Misc. Application. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the scope and jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere in the order passed by the settlement commission. We, therefore, SCA/1010820/2008 dismiss this petition at the threshold. kks (K. A. PUJ, J.) (B. N. MEHTA, J.)