Shri Gordhan Lal Soni v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Circle-Kotarajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017 1. M/s Gehna, 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar SoniRajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar Soni 2. Ms. Shalini Soni W/o Shri Upendra Kumar Soni, agedabout 46 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthanabout 46 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan 3. Shri Upendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Soni, agedabout 52 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthanabout 52 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan 4. Shri Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Late Shre Bhuli Lal Soni, agedabout 78 years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthanabout 78 years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Circle-KotaRajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMAOrder 08/09/2025 1.Petitioners are unhappy with the order dated 20[th] December2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission whereby,petitioners’ application under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be rejected. 2.Petitioners had filed an application under Section 245D of theAct before the Settlement Commission. That application was heldto have abated since the Settlement Commission could not pass afinal order before 31[st] March 2008. Petitioners challenged theautomatic abatement by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8213/2008. The said petition was disposed vide order dated25[th] April 2016 whereby, this Court was pleased to direct theSettlement Commission to complete the settlement proceedingswithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy ofthe aforesaid order. The Settlement Commissioner did notcomplete settlement proceedings within the period of six monthsand strangely, instead of asking petitioners to get the timeextended, passed impugned order dated 20[th] December 2016saying that six months period given by the Court has expired and,therefore, the matters are allowed to abate under Section 245HAof the Act. 3.Though we find that the conduct of the SettlementCommission to be unacceptable, we would restrain ourselves frommaking any observations. 4.Mr. Bapna says that Settlement Commission has beendisbanded and now there is an Interim Board constituted underSection 245AA of the Act. 5.In view of above, the impugned order dated 20[th] December2016 is quashed and set aside and the Interim Board forsettlement constituted under Section 245AA shall dispose theapplication filed by petitioners. 6.Petition disposed. 7.We clarify we have not made observations on the merits ofthe application filed by petitioners. (MANEESH SHARMA),J(K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/4