These Appeals Are Filed By The Income Tax Department Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Single Judge In W.p.nos.47042 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reported In (2010) 326 Itr 0642
High Court
20 Feb 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
These Appeals Are Filed By The Income Tax Department Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Single Judge In W.p.nos.47042 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reported In (2010) 326 Itr 0642
Date of order
20 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In These Appeals Are Filed By The Income Tax Department Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Single Judge In W.p.nos.47042 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Reported In (2010) 326 Itr 0642, the High Court (2018) decided the matter under Section 4, Section 245 of the Income-tax Act.
Decision: Accordingly, these writ appeals are treated as redundant and stand disposed of as such, but with the observations foregoing.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT APPEAL NOS.240 – 243 OF 2016 (T-IT)
IN
WRIT PETITION NOS.47042 – 47045 OF 2015
Between:
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queen’s Road, Bangalore. ... Appellant
(By Shri K.V.Aravind, Advocate)
And:
1. Boyance Infrastructure Private Limited, No.15, 4[th] Floor, Bannergatta Road, 3[rd] Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore 560076, Rep. by its Managing Director. No.15, 4[th] Floor, Bannergatta Road, 3[rd] Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore 560076, Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Income Tax Settlement Commission,
No.640, Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035, Represented by Secretary.
... Respondents
(By Shri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Ms.Maya Holla for M/s Holla & Holla, Advocate for R1, R2 - served)
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition Nos.47042-47045/2015 dated 16.12.2015.
These Writ Appeals coming on for preliminary hearing this day, Sunil Dutt Yadav, J,. delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the Income Tax Department aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.47042-47045/2015 dated 16.12.2015.
Before the learned Single Judge, the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 4.6.2015 passed under Section 245-D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), whereby the Application of the assessee in Form 34B under Section 245-C was accepted for proceeding further in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 245-D(1) of the Act, was impugned. However, the said order of the Settlement Commission was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge while observing that maintainability of the
Application for settlement could be raised as a contention by the Department before the Settlement Commission and the Commission would be entitled to examine the question at the final hearing. Aggrieved by such a finding and order, the present writ appeals came to be filed contending that the order of the learned Single Judge was erroneous and in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation and another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 326 ITR 0642.
It is contended in the memorandum of appeal that by virtue of the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court, the Settlement Commission could not proceed with the application without recording a finding as to the compliance with the jurisdictional conditions, as specified under Section 245-C of the Act.
It is, however, pointed out that since after passing the order sought to be challenged in these appeals, the Settlement Commission had passed a final order under
Section 245-D(4) of the Act on 28.9.2016 finally rejecting the application as not maintainable as there was no full and true disclosure; and the said order has been challenged in W.P.No.57238/2016.
In view of the position as obtaining, where the final order of the Settlement Commission rejecting the application of the assessee has been challenged by way of separate proceedings, in our view, examining the questions raised in these appeals would be rather an exercise in futility and suffice it would be to provide that all the contentions of the appellants, as raised in the present writ appeals, shall remain open to be raised in the said writ petition or any other proceedings as may be taken up by the parties in this matter. In the interest of justice, it is also considered appropriate to observe that the impugned order dated 16.12.2015 would not be treated as a precedent.
Accordingly, these writ appeals are treated as redundant and stand disposed of as such, but with the observations foregoing.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RS/*
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.