Rajendra Kumar Mehta v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kotarajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2570/2017 1. M/s Mehta Stone Polishers, Through Its Partner ShriRajendra Kumar Mehta S/o Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, M/sChunni Lal Motilal Sarraf, Main Market, Jhalrapatan, Dist.JhalawarRajendra Kumar Mehta S/o Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, M/sChunni Lal Motilal Sarraf, Main Market, Jhalrapatan, Dist.Jhalawar 2. Rajendra Kumar Mehta S/o Shri Abhay Kumar Jain, M/sChunni Lal Motilal Sarraf, Main Market, Jhalrapatan, Dist.JhalawarChunni Lal Motilal Sarraf, Main Market, Jhalrapatan, Dist.Jhalawar ----Petitioners Versus Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, KotaRajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajat Sharma &Mr.Akshay Sharma forMr.Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv.Mr.Akshay Sharma forMr.Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr.Siddharth Bapna withMr.Meyhul MiittalMr.Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/03/2025-AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL): 1.This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2016passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (for brevity ‘theCommission’) dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. 2.The brief facts are that the petitioners initially filed a writpetition D.B. W.P. (Civil) No.13135/2008 titled as M/s Mehta StonePolishers & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. challenging the validityof the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) as inserted by the Finance Act, 2007. Theamended provision provides for automatic abatement of the application filed before the Settlement Commission in case nofinal order is passed before 31.03.2008. The writ petition wasdisposed of on 25.04.2016. The operative part of the order isquoted below:- “Counsel for the petitioners submits that theissue involved in these writ petitions has been dealtwith by the Apex Court in the case of Union of IndiaVs. Star Television News Ltd.: (2015) 12 SCC 665.In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the matterhas to be remitted to the Settlement Commission. We have considered the submissions made bycounsel for the parties. It is admitted by counsel for both theparties that the issued raised and decided bythe Bombay High Court was challenged beforethe Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.Star Television News Ltd. (supra). The ApexCourt approved the judgment of the BombayHigh Court in said case reported in (2009) 317ITR 66. Para 59 of the judgment of Bombay HighCourt in the case (supra) is relevant, thusquoted here under:- “59. From the above discussion havingarrived at a conclusion that fixing thecut off date as March 31, 2008, wasarbitrary the provisions of Section245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be alsoarrived at a conclusion that fixing thecut off date as March 31, 2008, wasarbitrary the provisions of Section245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it ispossible to read down the provisions ofSection 245HA(1)(iv) in the manner setout earlier. This recourse has beentaken in order to avoid holding theprovisions as unconstitutional. Havingso read, we would have to read Section245HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the eventthe application could not be disposed offor any reasons attributable on the partof the applicant who has made anapplication under Section 245C.Consequently, only such proceedingswould abate under Section 245HA(1)(iv).Considering the above, theSettlement Commission to considerwhether the proceedings had beendelayed on account of any reasonsattributable on the part of theApplicant. If it comes to the conclusionthat it was not so, then to proceed withthe application as if not abated.Respondent No. 1 if desirous of earlydisposal of the pending applications, toconsider the appointment of moreBenches of the Settlement Commission,more so at the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai.” In view of the direction, quoted above,these writ petitions are to be governed by thejudgment in the case (supra). The SettlementCommission would consider the issue of delayand if not attributable to the applicant, it wouldcomplete the proceedings within a period of sixmonths from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder. With the aforesaid, the writ petitions standdisposed of.” 3.In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the matter wastaken up by the settlement commission and it was recorded thatearlier the jurisdiction was with the Principal Bench, New Delhiwhich was later changed but no record was transferred. In aninter-se communication between two benches of the commission,it was informed that the record is not available and the files bereconstructed. On failure of the applicants to reconstruct the file,the application was dismissed holding that the applicants were notinterested in pursuing their matters and the commission is unableto decide as to whether delay is attributable to applicants or not. 4.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thepleadings. 5.From the order of the commission, it is evident that nocommunication was sent to the applicants for reconstruction of therecord or supplying copies of the application along-with the documents relied upon, only an attempt was was made by thedepartment to reconstruct the file without involving the applicants.6.The mode adopted by the commission, the petitioner hasbeen left remediless, without any fault and inspite of directions ofthis Court to the commission to decide the application. 7.The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remittedback to the commission to decide the application. The writ petitionis allowed. 8.The applicants are directed to appear before the Authorityconcerned on 21.04.2025. (MANEESH SHARMA),J(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/58