Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) – 4, Mumbai v. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (Itsc),Mumbai & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2557 OF 2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 4, Mumbai..Petitioner Versus Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (ITSC),Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Kevic Setalwad with Mr.Girish Dave with Ms.Shushma Nagraj withMr.N.C. Mohanty for Petitioner.Ms.Prachi Dhanani with Mr.Shyam Gopal I/b. Veritas Legal for Respondent Nos.2 to 43. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2860 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-1, Mumbai..Petitioner VersusIncome-tax Settlement Commissioner & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.P.C. Chhotrary for Petitioner. Ms.Prachi Dhanani with Mr.Shyam Gopal I/b. Veritas Legal for Respondent Nos.2 to 43. CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2016 P.C.: These two petitions had been filed by the Income TaxDepartment challenging the same impugned order dated 21 May 2015passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245D(6)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Therefore, on 2 September 2016, we passed a detailed order indicating that the Income TaxDepartment is one department as a whole and each Income Tax Officercannot treat himself as an independent authority so as to separatelycanvass individual view points and not the department view point. Wehad recorded in our order dated 2 September 2016 that filing of multiplepetitions leads to waste of public money as more than one Advocate isbriefed to canvass / agitate the same issue. We had also pointed out thatthis is the first occasion we had come where the Revenue filing more thanone petition challenging the same order. Therefore, we adjourned boththese petitions to enable the Revenue to take a stand with regard to thetwo petitions filed. In the above circumstances, we directed Principal ChiefCommissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai to file an affidavit explaining thecircumstances which led to the filing of the two petitions on the samecause of action by two different officers of the Revenue. 3. Consequent to our directions, Mr.D.S. Saksena, PrincipalChief Commissioner of Mumbai has filed an affidavit dated 20 September2016. In the affidavit, he has stated that the department would endeavourto prevent this kind of situation recurring. Inter alia it records as follows : “(i)The Income Tax Department wishes to pursue the WritPetition No.2557 of 2015 as amended by the proposed amendmentsin the said Chamber Summons; and (ii)The Income Tax Department seeks to withdraw Writ PetitionNo.2860 of 2015.” We are of the view that the withdrawal of a writ petition by the Revenue cannot be conditional on the basis of the proposedamendment being allowed by this court in Writ Petition No.2557/2015.The chamber summons taken out by the Petitioner will be considered onits own merits. 5.At this stage, Mr.Setalwad, learned Senior Counsel, oninstructions of Mr.K.K. Singh, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax(Central-4), who is present in court, seeks to unconditionally withdrawWrit Petition No.2860/2015. Mr.Chhotrary, learned Counsel for thePetitioner in Writ Petition No.2860/2015 does not object to theunconditional withdrawal of Writ Petition No.2860/2015. 6.Writ petition No.2860/2015 is dismissed as unconditionallywithdrawn. (S.C. GUPTE, J.) (M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)