Surinder Kumar v. Income-Tax Settlement Commission & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992 & other connected matters Date of Decision:26.04.2013 Surinder Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission & another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:-None for the petitioner.Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of the afore-mentioned writ petitionalong with other writ petitions mentioned in the foot note of this orderchallenging the order dated 17.7.1989 passed by the Income Tax SettlementCommission (for short, `the Commission'). By the said order, 16applications filed by the Anand Group in the month of March, 1983consisting of 11 applications under the Income Tax Act and 5 applicationsunder the Wealth Tax Act were dismissed by the Commission. TheCommission recorded that there was over-all non-cooperation on the part ofthe applicants at all stage and that no material has been furnished by theapplicants on the basis of which a reasonable order of settlement can bepassed. Consequently, liberty was given to the Assessing Officer to framethe assessment in accordance with law. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have referred to anapplication submitted in December, 1990 for recall of the aforesaid order onthe ground that the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act matters werehandled by Shri V.P. Anand, who was detained under the Conservation ofForeign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (forshort the 1974 Act) on 06.10.1988 and was released on 06.10.1990 and,therefore, the question of any willful or intentional non-cooperation couldnot be inferred against the petitioners. We find that the entire claim of the petitioners to dispute theorder passed by the Commission is untenable. The petitioners have filedapplications for settlement on 25.03.1983 in respect of assessment years1976-77 to 1982-83. Such applications came to be decided on 17.07.1989.A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.07.1989 shows that the petitionerswere given notice to submit statement of facts within 30 days on 29.06.1983.But such statement of facts were filed only on 27.12.1984 i.e after more thanone year and four months. It was also noticed that even Deputy Director ofInvestigations has reported that information sought by the revenue from thePetitioners have not been furnished in spite of five opportunities granted.The Commission also found that the petitioners have not furnished anymaterial on the basis of which reasonable order of settlement can be passed. Thereafter, applications have been submitted to recall the saidorder inter-alia on the ground that Shri V.P. Anand, one of the members ofthe Anand Group was detained on 6.10.1988 under the 1974 Act, therefore,there was no willful non-cooperation to the Commission. We do not find any merit in the said plea. The applications for settlement were filed in 1983, but the detention order came to be passed in1988 i.e. after five years. In fact, the assessee was required to co-operatefrom the date of filing of the application and also produce material on thebasis of which settlement can be arrived at. Neither the petitioners havefurnished sufficient material before the Commission nor co-operated withthe Commissioner to furnish report, therefore, We find that the reasoninggiven by the Commission cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. The scopeof judicial review against the order of Settlement Commission has beendelineated inM/s R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT), (1989) 1 SCC 628,when theCourt observed: We do not find any merit in the said plea. The applications for settlement were filed in 1983, but the detention order came to be passed in1988 i.e. after five years. In fact, the assessee was required to co-operatefrom the date of filing of the application and also produce material on thebasis of which settlement can be arrived at. Neither the petitioners havefurnished sufficient material before the Commission nor co-operated withthe Commissioner to furnish report, therefore, We find that the reasoninggiven by the Commission cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. The scopeof judicial review against the order of Settlement Commission has beendelineated inM/s R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT), (1989) 1 SCC 628,when theCourt observed: “In exercise of our power of judicial review of the decision of theSettlement Commission we are concerned with the legality of procedurefollowed and not with validity of the order. See the observations of LordHailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1WLR 1155. Judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with thedecision making process.”Settlement Commission we are concerned with the legality of procedurefollowed and not with validity of the order. See the observations of LordHailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1WLR 1155. Judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with thedecision making process.” Later in another judgment reported asShriyans Prasad Jain v. Income Tax Officer & others, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 727, the Court observed as under: “19. Mr Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting thatin this appeal this Court would not go into questions of the fact or reviewthe findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by thisCourt in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389 this Courtcan interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be “contraryto any of the provisions of the Act”. To the same effect is the earlierdecision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and FatehchandNursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1989) 1 SCC 628.”in this appeal this Court would not go into questions of the fact or reviewthe findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by thisCourt in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389 this Courtcan interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be “contraryto any of the provisions of the Act”. To the same effect is the earlierdecision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and FatehchandNursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1989) 1 SCC 628.” In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Commission, which may warrant interference in exercise of power of judicial review by this Court. The writ petitions are dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE April 26, 2013 ( RITU BAHRI )renu/Vimal JUDGE 1.C.W.P. No.3886 of 1992 M/s Punjab Allied Industries Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another M/s Punjab Allied Industries Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 2.C.W.P. No.3987 of 1992 Shri V.P. Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Shri V.P. Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 3.C.W.P. No.3988 of 1992 Mrs. Raj Rani Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Mrs. Raj Rani Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 4.C.W.P. No.3989 of 1992 Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 5.C.W.P. No.3992 of 1992 M/s Oriental Industrial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another M/s Oriental Industrial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 6.C.W.P. No.3993 of 1992 M/s Vedsons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another M/s Vedsons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 3.C.W.P. No.3988 of 1992 Mrs. Raj Rani Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Mrs. Raj Rani Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 4.C.W.P. No.3989 of 1992 Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 5.C.W.P. No.3992 of 1992 M/s Oriental Industrial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another M/s Oriental Industrial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 6.C.W.P. No.3993 of 1992 M/s Vedsons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another M/s Vedsons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 7.C.W.P. No.4001 of 1992 Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 8.C.W.P. No.4002 of 1992 Shri Vedsons Steel & Wires Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Shri Vedsons Steel & Wires Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 9.C.W.P. No.4081 of 1992Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another 10.C.W.P. No.4082 of 1992Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth-tax Settlement Commission and another Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth-tax Settlement Commission and another 11.C.W.P. No.4083 of 1992 Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another tax and another 12.C.W.P. No.4084 of 1992Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another 13.C.W.P. No.4085 of 1992Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another 14. C.W.P. No.4086 of 1992Sh. Subash Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and anotherSh. Subash Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another 15.C.W.P. No.4087 of 1992 Sh. Subash Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth Tax Settlement Commission and another Sh. Subash Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth Tax Settlement Commission and another 16.C.W.P. No.4088 of 1992Mrs. Aruna Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another Mrs. Aruna Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another