Wp/17347/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Income Tax Settlement

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Commissioner of Income TaxChennai I, Room No.701, VII Floor New Block,121 Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai 600 034.... Petitioner 1.The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai – 35. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call forthe records and quash the order of the first respondent dated24.03.2008 passed in Application No.TN/CN01/05-06/5/IT, byviolation of clear provisions of 245D(2A), among others, byignoring the non-payment of tax on the additional incomedisclosed and the interest thereon before 31[st] July 2007 andwithout granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner andas being beyond the scope of its jurisdiction and ultraviresthe provision of Chapter XIX of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated24.3.2008 passed by the 1[st] respondent in Application No. TN/CNhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/01/05-06/5/IT filed by the 2[nd] respondent on the ground that the 2[nd] respondent had failed to pay the admitted liabilityin terms of Section 245D (2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner there was a shortfall in thepayment of tax on the admitted liability. 2. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order ofthe first respondent was without jurisdiction. Accordingto the petitioner there was a short fall of Rs. 70,396/- detailed as under:- “The entire TDS claims as refundable on thebasis of returned loss for A.Y.1999-2000 wasissued vide intimation issued under Section 143(1) on 30.06.2000 and revision order dated23.10.2003. Thus total refund issued wasRs.20,61,963/- which included interest underSection 244 A. Under proviso (ii) to section245C(1), tax and interest payable would be suchtax and interest which would have been paid underthe provisions of the Act had the incomedisclosed in the application been declared in thereturn of income before the Assessing Officer onthe date of filing of application. The taxpayable, therefore, would have been as follows: 3.Operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- “3.The applicant had entered into agreementwith BSAL for carrying out a turn-key project forRs.102 Crores. For execution in the project,initially an amount of Rs.20.14 crores was requiredhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/for import of machinery from Germany. This amount was directly paid by the BSAL by opening L.C. Infavour of the German company and this amount wasnot received by the applicant but was paid onbehalf of the applicant by BSAL. 4.The applicant received, in addition to theamount paid to Germany Company, amount of Rs.35,77crores which was booked as contract receipts. Theapplicant fairly stated that out of this amount ofRs.35.77 crores, an amount of Rs.12.24 crores wasreceived in A.Yr.1998-99 and was duly accounted foras income in 1007-98. Hence the same is not a partof the application before the Commission. Thisamount was considered as part of receipt and incomefor the year 1997-98. The balance amount ofRs.23.53 crores is to be considered in the presentcase. 5.The A/R fairly stated that as thecircumstances had changed from the both the BSALand applicant did not wish to go to the executionof the contact. This amount received wasultimately dealt as accommodation entries for BSAL.The applicant arranged to issue of cheques forsupplies after keeping 5% of the amount for itselfand the cash so generated was paid to BSAL throughvarious suppliers. The applicant has offered 5% ofthe amount and further amount of Rs.1.5 crores byway of undisclosed income. 5.The A/R fairly stated that as thecircumstances had changed from the both the BSALand applicant did not wish to go to the executionof the contact. This amount received wasultimately dealt as accommodation entries for BSAL.The applicant arranged to issue of cheques forsupplies after keeping 5% of the amount for itselfand the cash so generated was paid to BSAL throughvarious suppliers. The applicant has offered 5% ofthe amount and further amount of Rs.1.5 crores byway of undisclosed income. 6.The CIT has stated in his report that theapplicant had actually invoiced Rs.72.43 crores toBSAL. The invoice amount should be considered asincome of the applicant. We do not see anysubstance in the CIT (DR)'s argument. The billedamount cannot be considered as income when theapplicant has not at all received the balanceamount. Under the circumstances, we do not see anyreason to make any adjustment on this account. 7.The CIT has raised the issue of discrepancybetween contract receipts shown by the applicantand payments claimed by BSAL. The A/R fairlystated that the CIT's contention that Rs.72.43crores was illed to BSAL is correct. However thefact remains that the applicant received payment ofonly Rs.35.77 crores. Definitely the BSAL had notpaid Rs.102.00 crores (agreement valued to theentire contract to the applicant). The BSAL hadnot even paid the entire billed amount.Considering the circumstances, we hold that thereis no discrepancy in the amounts as claimed by theCIT. 8.The CIT also raided the issue that as per theledger accounts of applicant in BSAL, larger amounthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was paid. However, it is seen that other amountsshows are stated to have been transferred to headoffice. We do not agree that amount transferred tohead office by BSAL is a payment to the applicant.It is only transfer to the head office of BSAL. Inany case the applicant has nothing to do with suchtransfer. In view of the above, we do not see anyreason to make any adjustment to the offer made bythe applicant on account of BSAL. 9.Next issue raised in the Rule-9 report ispurchase of windmills from applicant by FirstLeasing Company of India Ltd. (FLCIL). The CIT inRule-9 report has stated that FLCIL claimed to havepurchased 13 windmills from the applicant for Rs.13Crores (In A.Yr.1997-98 which is not before theCommission). He further stated that in case ofFLCIL, lease rent has been disallowed. 10.The A/R stated that the applicant had neversold any mills to FLCIL. The applicant had agreedto construct windmissls for FLCIL for which theapplicant received Rs.3.32 crores as advance.Subsepuently, the contract was cancelled and theFLCIL encashed the bank guarantee given to theapplicant and recovered back the advance. Sincethe contract was cancelled, we do not see anyreason to make adjustment on this account. Wewould also like to add that if the applicant hadleased windmills then it would have been entitledto deduct the lease rent paid. Such payment hasnot been claimed by the applicant either inoriginal assessment or before the Commission.Hence in our opinion, no adjustment is required onthis account. 11.The CIT has stated that the entiretransaction for BSAL is bogus and profit cannot beestimated on bogus transaction. There is merely anissue which we have already dealt with and we donot see any reason to make adjustment on thisaccount. 12.In view of the above, the income is settledat Rs.2.69 Crores. 13.In view of the statutory time limitprescribed u/s.245D(4A) of the Act, the SettlementCommission directs the Commissioner of Income-taxto compute the total income, incometax, interestand penalty, if any, payable as per this order andcommunicate to the applicant immediately along withdemand notice and challan under intimation to thishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/office. 11.The CIT has stated that the entiretransaction for BSAL is bogus and profit cannot beestimated on bogus transaction. There is merely anissue which we have already dealt with and we donot see any reason to make adjustment on thisaccount. 12.In view of the above, the income is settledat Rs.2.69 Crores. 13.In view of the statutory time limitprescribed u/s.245D(4A) of the Act, the SettlementCommission directs the Commissioner of Income-taxto compute the total income, incometax, interestand penalty, if any, payable as per this order andcommunicate to the applicant immediately along withdemand notice and challan under intimation to thishttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/office. 14.The applicant shall pay the tax within 35days of receipt of a demand notice. The applicantshall furnish proof of the tax payment to theSettlement Commission and the Assessing Officerwithin 10 days of making the payment. If the taxis not paid within the due date, the tax along withinterest under section 245D(6A) of the Income-taxAct shall be recovered by the Assessing Office asper Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act. 15.Considering the co-operation extended by theapplicant in the completion of the presentproceeding, immunity is granted from prosecutionunder the I.T. Act and under the relevantprovisions of the I.P.C. And also from theimposition of any penalty under the I.T.Act, withreference to the case covered by the presentsettlement. However, the immunity so granted shallbe withdrawn, if it is subsequently found that theconditions mentioned in Sub-Section (1A) and/orSub-Section (2) of the Sec.245H are satisfied. 16.This settlement shall be declared void, if itis subsequently found by the Settlement Commissionthat it has been obtained by fraud ormisrepresentation of facts.” 4.The 2[nd] respondent filed an application to settle thecase on 11.7.2005 before the 1[st] respondent Income TaxSettlement Commission in Application No. TN/CN 01/05-06/5/IT. 5.The case of the petitioner is that the 2[nd] respondenthad entered into dubious transactions wherein without carryingout any work the petitioner had raised invoices on BellarySteel and Alloys Ltd. (BASL)and had received payments buthad suppressed the taxable income by raising invoices for fictitious supply and services to write of such payment asexpenditure during the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. 6.Since assessment orders were passed which called uponthe 2[nd]the 2[nd] respondent to pay differential tax, the 2[nd]respondent filed application to settle the case under theprovisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the 1[st]respondent Income Tax Settlement Commission by not correctly declaring the tax liability. 7. According to the petitioner, despite the petitionerfiling of a report on 12.10.2005 under Rule 6 and 9 of theIncome-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 ,the1[st] respondent proceeded to admit the case of the 2[nd]respondent contrary to section 245D Income Tax Act, 1961 afterits amendment by Finance Act, 2007. 8.According to the petitioner the 1[st] respondent ought nothttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/to have proceeded with the aforesaid application filed by the 2[nd] respondent in as much as the 2[nd] respondent failed tocomply with the mandatory requirement of the amended section245D Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2007. 9.According to the petitioner, there shall be deemedadmission in respect of applications filed before 1.6.2007which were pending before the amendment provided the applicant(the 2[nd] respondent has by the 2[nd] respondent) pays theadmitted tax on the income disclosed in the settlementapplication and interest thereon on or before 31.7.2007. 8.According to the petitioner the 1[st] respondent ought nothttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/to have proceeded with the aforesaid application filed by the 2[nd] respondent in as much as the 2[nd] respondent failed tocomply with the mandatory requirement of the amended section245D Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended by Finance Act, 2007. 9.According to the petitioner, there shall be deemedadmission in respect of applications filed before 1.6.2007which were pending before the amendment provided the applicant(the 2[nd] respondent has by the 2[nd] respondent) pays theadmitted tax on the income disclosed in the settlementapplication and interest thereon on or before 31.7.2007. 10.According to the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent onlypaid partially the admitted tax liability and interest thereonon 23.7.2007 and since there was short payment of theadmitted tax liability, the 1[st] respondent erred settling thecase of the 1[st] respondent contrary to section 245D of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 11.It is further submitted that the 1[st] respondent has ignored the report of the petitioner filed under Rule 9. Itis further submitted that the 2[nd] respondent also failed to truly and fully disclose all the material facts in theapplication and therefore the 1[st] respondent erred in allowing the application filed by the 2[nd] respondent. 12.It is submitted that according the 2[nd] respondent the total value of the invoice raised was Rs. 72.43 Crores outof which even as per the 2[nd] respondent, BSAL had paid a sumof Rs.60.50 Crores. However, in the same application filedfor settling the case, the 2[nd] respondent has furthercontracted itself by stating that it has received only a sumof Rs.35.77 Crores. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on thefollowing decision:- i.Union of India and Others Vs. Ind-SwiftLaboratories Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 635. ii.Commissioner of Income-tax (C) – III Vs.Gopal Gupta, (2014) 46 taxmann.com 312 (Delhi). iii.N.Krishnan Vs. Settlement Commission,(1989) 47 TAXMANN 294 (KAR). Settlement Commission Additional Bench II, Judgmentdated 04.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujaratat Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No.13572of 2018 and batch of cases. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,Karnataka(Central),BangaloreVs.RNSInfrastructure Limited, (2016) 67 taxmann.com 77(Karnataka). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.On the other hand, it is the case of the [2nd] respondentthat the Asst. Commissioner by an order dated 28.4.2008 hasgiven effect to the impugned order of the [1st] respondent andhas concluded that the [2nd] respondent was eligible for a refundof Rs. 2,08,256 /- and therefore alleged shortfall in paymentof Rs.70,396/- in payment of admitted tax liability on theadditional amount cannot be countenanced. 15.It is therefore submitted that the impugned order wasneither irregular nor without jurisdiction as the 2[nd]respondent had paid the admitted tax liability on 23.7.2007 which was much before the cut off date as per theamended Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year2007. 16. 2[nd] respondent further submits that the present writpetition is nothing but an abuse of court proceedings in asmuch as the petitioner is re agitating the issues on meritsand that same is impermissible under article 226 of theConstitution of India as this court is not sitting as anappellate court. 17.It is submitted that this court is not reallyconcerned with the decision of the 1[st] respondent but with the decision making process adopted by the 1[st] respondentand since there is no error in the decision-making process,there is no scope for interference. It is therefore thepresent writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 16. 2[nd] respondent further submits that the present writpetition is nothing but an abuse of court proceedings in asmuch as the petitioner is re agitating the issues on meritsand that same is impermissible under article 226 of theConstitution of India as this court is not sitting as anappellate court. 17.It is submitted that this court is not reallyconcerned with the decision of the 1[st] respondent but with the decision making process adopted by the 1[st] respondentand since there is no error in the decision-making process,there is no scope for interference. It is therefore thepresent writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 18.It is further submitted that there is also noperversity in the impugned order passed by the 1[st] respondentfor this court to interfere and therefore the present writpetition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 19. It is further submitted that the 1[st] respondent hadexamined the issue at length and it is only after consideringthe objection of the petitioner filed under Rule 6 and underRule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure)Rules, 1997 after impugned order has been passed. 20.The learned counsel for the respondent relied on thefollowing decisions :- i.R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad V. SettlementCommission and another – 1989 1 SCC 628 ii.Jyotendrasinhji V. S.L.Tripathi & Ors. – 1993 (3) SCC38 iii.Shryans Prasad Jain V. Income Tax Officer andOrs. 1993 Supp. 4 SCC 727iv.Union of India and others V. Ind-SwiftLaborataries – 2011 (4) SCC 635 v.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada vi.Settlement Commission (IT & WT) -Civil Misc. Writhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Petition (Tax) No.1015 of 2013 1 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. vii. Commissioner of Income tax (Chennai), (2014)51 taxmnn.com 451 (Kerala) by Hon’ble High Court ofKerala. 21. I have considered the arguments advanced onbehalf of the petitioner and respondent. The learned counselfor the petitioner was directed to produce records of thefiles pertaining to the above case from the 1[st] respondent. SGRwas made available. I have perused the records. 22. It is noticed that the application for settlingthe case was filed by the 2[nd] respondent before the 1[st]respondent on 11.7.2005. The 2[nd] respondent had admitted to pay an additional amount of tax of Rs. 5,23,800 years 1998-99and assessment years 1999-2000. Details of the amount agreedto be paid by the 2[nd] respondent are as follows:- 23. Before touching on the merits of the case, I willfirst refer to Section 245C/D of the Income Tax Act,1961 andthe amendment to it in the year 2007. 24. Prior to amendment in 2007, under sub section(2A) to section 245D subject to the provisions of sub-section (2B), the assessee shall, within thirty-five days ofthe receipt of a copy of the order under sub-section (1)allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay theadditional amount of income-tax payable on the incomedisclosed in the application and shall furnish proof of suchpayment to the Settlement Commission. 25. However, after amendment, Sub-clause (ii) to sub-section (2A) was substituted. An application filed undersub-section (1) of section 245C before the 1st day of June,2007shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded withif the additional tax on the income disclosed in suchapplication and the interest was paid on or before the 31stday of July, 2007 if an order under the provisions ofsubsection (1) of the said section as it stood prior totheir amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 was not made beforethe 1[st] day of June, 2007. 25. However, after amendment, Sub-clause (ii) to sub-section (2A) was substituted. An application filed undersub-section (1) of section 245C before the 1st day of June,2007shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded withif the additional tax on the income disclosed in suchapplication and the interest was paid on or before the 31stday of July, 2007 if an order under the provisions ofsubsection (1) of the said section as it stood prior totheir amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 was not made beforethe 1[st] day of June, 2007. 26. Since no order of admission was passed prior to theaforesaid date, the application shall be deemed to havebeen admitted if the an applicant pays the additional amount of tax on the additional amount admittedin the application before 31st day of July, 2007. In the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/present case, there is payment of additional amount of tax before 31st day of July, 2007. 27. Therefore, the 1[st]respondent SettlementCommission had jurisdiction to proceed further with theapplication filed by the 2[nd] respondent under Section 245 ofthe Income Tax Act,1961. Therefore to that extent, I find noinfirmity in the procedure adopted by the SettlementCommission in proceeding further with the application filedby the 2[nd] respondentunder Section 245 of the Income TaxAct,1961. 28. However, at the same time, I am unable to uphold the impugned order of the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission in accepting the case of 2[nd] respondent as I findthe 2[nd] respondent has not made full and true disclosure ofits income. 29. Prior to above applications, the petitioner hadfiled returns on 13.11.1998 for the assessment year 1998-99and on 13.12.1999 for the assessment year 1999-2000. Thesereturns ultimately lead to passing of two separate assessment orders dated 29.3.2005 for the respectiveassessment years. 30. Thus, as against the tax liability ofRs.11,65,11,970/- + Rs.36,40,99,161/- determined in the twoassessment order, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum ofRs.5,23,800 alone as admitted tax for settling the case underthe provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 31. Explanation to sub-section (2A) to Section 245D, further stated that in respect of the applicationsreferred to in this sub-section, the 31st day of July, 2007shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to bethe date of order of rejection or allowing the application tobe proceeded with. 32. There are several contradictions in the case putforward by the 2[nd] respondent before the 1[st] respondent whichremain unanswered and therefore the case ought not havebeen settlement under the Act. What was expected wasfull disclosure of the facts and active co-operation by thepetitioner and not a controlled disclosure of facts bythe 2[nd] respondent in bits and pieces before the 1[st]respondent Settlement Commission. 33.In the application for settling the case before the 1[st] respondent, the 2[nd] respondent has stated the principalnamely Bellary Steel and Alloys Limited(BSAL) had awarded aturnkey contact to the 2[nd] respondent for commissioning andinstalling an Integrated Steel Plant for a total value of Rs.60.5 crores. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34. There were escalations in the value of the contract.According to the 2[nd] respondent, it had raised invoices over aperiod of time for a total sum of Rs.72.43 crores and againstthe invoices raised the received a sum of Rs. 60.50 crore. 35. In the said application, the 2[nd] respondent furthersubmitted that it encountered difficulty in sourcing ofmaterials required for additional work. Therefore, the 2[nd]respondent agreed with BSAL for latter to directly identifythe suppliers of materials for the additional work. 34. There were escalations in the value of the contract.According to the 2[nd] respondent, it had raised invoices over aperiod of time for a total sum of Rs.72.43 crores and againstthe invoices raised the received a sum of Rs. 60.50 crore. 35. In the said application, the 2[nd] respondent furthersubmitted that it encountered difficulty in sourcing ofmaterials required for additional work. Therefore, the 2[nd]respondent agreed with BSAL for latter to directly identifythe suppliers of materials for the additional work. 36. At the same time in paragraph 7 of the application,the 2[nd] respondent has stated that up to 31.3.1999, the saidBSAL had transferred an amount of Rs. 35.77 crores throughbanking channels and these amounts were paid for contractualpayments. 37. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the value of suchadditional materials were agreed, identified by BSAL whichamounted to Rs.43.05 crores. Since procurements were directlymade by BSAL, the expenses aggregating to the aforesaid sum ofRs.43.05 crores were debited towards such purchases andcredit was given in the account of BSAL. 38. The 2[nd] respondent has also stated that as againstthe total invoice value of Rs.72.43 crores, a sum of Rs. 21.05represents the value of machineries imported directly by BSALwhich was paid by BSAL directly and a Rs.22.05 crores wasinvoiced fictitious transactions totaling to Rs.44.05crores out of The Aforesaid Amount of Rs.72.43 Crores. 39.Thus, there are not only contradictions in theapplications but it also lacks clarity. Rule 9 report dated10.3.2008 of the petitioner has also elicited severalcontradictions in the case of the 2[nd] respondent which hasbeen ignored he 1[st] respondent. 40. From the records, it is also discernible that at onestage the 2[nd] respondent submitted that it had received a totalsum of Rs.37.00 crores out of which about Rs. 6. crores wasspent towards design charges and towards civil contract workand that a sum of Rs. 30.05 crores encashed and shown towardsfictitious transactions. 41. The 1[st] respondent has accepted the version of the2[nd] respondent received only a total sum of Rs. 35.77 croresup to 31.3.1999.from BSAL, out of which an amount of Rs.12.24 crores was received during assessment year 1998-99 andwas duly accounted as income, in the previous year 1997-98. 42. The 1[st] respondent has accepted that the statement of 2[nd] respondent that it retained only 5% of the amounthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/paid to it by BSAL as commission. Since the 2[nd] respondent agreed to add another amount of Rs.1.5 crores to theaforesaid sum as undisclosed income the 1[st] respondent hasaccepted the case of the 2[nd] respondent. 43. The arithmetic of the transactions disclosed beforethe 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission do not add up andclearly shows that there were large-scale suppressionresorted by the petitioner not only before the assessingofficer but also before the 1[st]respondent settlementcommission. 44. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission has accepted the case of the 2[nd] respondent that a sum ofRs.20.14 crores was directly paid by BSAL by opening a LCdirectly in favour of the German company and that the amountwas not received by the petitioner. 45. There are several discrepancies in the manner inwhich the case has been allowed to be settled by the 1[st]respondent settlement commission. The calculations has beenaccepted without any deliberations do not inspire confidence. 46. There are several disputed questions of fact whichhave been glossed over by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission while settling be case of the 2[nd] respondent vide impugned order. 44. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission has accepted the case of the 2[nd] respondent that a sum ofRs.20.14 crores was directly paid by BSAL by opening a LCdirectly in favour of the German company and that the amountwas not received by the petitioner. 45. There are several discrepancies in the manner inwhich the case has been allowed to be settled by the 1[st]respondent settlement commission. The calculations has beenaccepted without any deliberations do not inspire confidence. 46. There are several disputed questions of fact whichhave been glossed over by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission while settling be case of the 2[nd] respondent vide impugned order. 47. Though, this court is not sitting in appeal againstthe impugned order of the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission,I find sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned orderas there are several contradictions and the 2[nd] respondent appears to have not disclosed truly all facts that arerequired for settling the case. The impugned order hasaccepted cases without any discussions, I am therefore of theview that the impugned order is not sustainable. 48. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passedby the 1[st] respondent is quashed and the case is remanded backto the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission to pass a freshorder after considering the objections of the petitionerfiled under rule 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure)Rules 1997. Since the dispute pertains to the assessmentyears 1997-98 and 1999-2000 and the application filed by theby the 1[st] respondent is quashed and the case is remanded backto the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission to pass a freshorder after considering the objections of the petitionerfiled under rule 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure)Rules 1997. Since the dispute pertains to the assessmentyears 1997-98 and 1999-2000 and the application filed by the 2[nd] respondent was of the year 2005, the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission is requested to pass a fresh orderwithin a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of thisorder after considering the report of the petitioner filedunder Section 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules1997 through videoconferencing, if situations so warrants onaccount of continuance of Covid19 pandemic.Settlement Commission is requested to pass a fresh orderwithin a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of thisorder after considering the report of the petitioner filedunder Section 9 of the Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules1997 through videoconferencing, if situations so warrants onaccount of continuance of Covid19 pandemic. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 49.The writ petition stands disposed with the aboveobservation. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Nocost. Sd/-Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar arul / jenTo1.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai I, Room No.701, VII Floor New Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai – 35. W.P.No.17347 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 VG II(CO)GMY(14/07/2020)