Principal Commissioner Of Incometax (Central) – 3 v. Orchid Infrastructure Developersppvt. Ltd. & Anr

$~44 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 7836/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (CENTRAL) – 3..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.RahulChaudhary,SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr. SanjayKumar, Junior Standing Counsel. versus ORCHID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERSPPVT. LTD. & ANR. ..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Sameer Rohatgi and Mr. AkshitPradhan, Advocates for R-1.Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr. Abhishek Ghai,Advocate for R-2. CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R%05.09.2017 CM APPL. 32275/201 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7836/2017 2. The challenge in this petition by Revenue is to an order dated 16[th]September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission(‘ITSC’) to the extent of (i) granting immunity from penalty and prosecutionunder Section 245H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and (ii)granting waiver of interest under Section 234A of the Act to the RespondentNo.1. W.P.(C) 7836/2017 3. As regards the first issue, it is submitted that in terms of the provisions ofSection 245H of the Act, no immunity from penalty and prosecution can begranted by the ITSC since the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. foroffences punishable under Section 276 CC of the Act, was instituted beforethe receipt of the application under Section 245C. 4. It is clarified by Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, learned counsel for the RespondentNo.1 that in fact, the Respondent No.1 never sought any immunity fromprosecution.He pointed out that the said complaint by the Income TaxDepartment against the Respondent No.1 is still pending. 5.In view of that matter, the question of granting Respondent No.1immunity from penalty and prosecution under Section 245H of the Act, doesnot arise. 6. As regards the second issue, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1submits that all the documents were not supplied by the Department in thefirst instance. Two reminders had to be sent. In the circumstances, the Courtfinds that no error has been committed by the ITSC in granting waiver ofinterest to Respondent No.1. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 05, 2017/dk PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. W.P.(C) 7836/2017