W.p.(C)/4900/2015 Of Moin A. Qureshi v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-Ii, & Anr Through : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

$~103 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4900/2015MOIN A. QURESHI ..... Petitioner Through :Mr M. S. Syali, Sr Advocate with Mr SatyenSethi, Mr A. T. Panda and Mr Mayank Nagi versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II, & ANRThrough :Ms Suruchi Aggarwal ..... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R%18.05.2015 CM 8869/2015 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. WP(C) 4900/2015 & CM 8868/2015 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by theIncome Tax Settlement Commission.The said order was passed under Section 245D(2C), whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 245C of the Income TaxAct, 1961, was rejected. The only grievance raised by the petitioner before this Court is that an additionalreport was submitted by the Commissioner on 19.02.2015 in the course of the hearingbeing granted to the petitioner under Section 245D (2C) proviso and no opportunity wasgranted to the petitioner to respond to the same. Consequently, it was submitted, the order passed on 24.02.2015 was violative ofthe principles of natural justice which have been enshrined in the said proviso to Section245D (2C) of the said Act. The facts are that after an application under Section 245C was made on26.12.2014, the matter proceeded before the Settlement Commission up to the filing ofthe Commissioner’s report on 10.02.2015.The Settlement Commission gave anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 19.02.2015. On that date itself, in the courseof the hearing, an additional set of documents was placed by the Commissioner beforethe Settlement Commission. Those documents ran into 260 pages. The order was passedon 24.02.2015 without any further hearing, apart from a hearing conducted on the verynext day on 20.02.2015, which included hearing in respect of other group cases. We are of the view that the documents which were filed on 19.02.2015 constitutedpart of the report which the Commissioner had initially filed on 10.02.2015. We alsonote that the Settlement Commission had relied upon the documents which were filed on19.02.2015. In this backdrop, we are of the view that adequate opportunity was not givento the petitioner to respond to the said documents. For this reason, we are setting aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2015. We areremitting the matter to the Settlement Commission to the stage of consideration of theCommissioner’s report and of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.Mr Syali, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that heshall not take the plea of limitation with regard to the additional documents dated 19.02.2015 and they shall be construed and deemed to be part of the original report dated10.02.2015 submitted by the Commissioner. Consequently, we direct the Settlement Commission to render its decision at thestage of Section 245D (2C) of the said Act within 10 days from the first date of hearingbefore the Settlement Commission. The hearing shall be granted to the petitioner by theSettlement Commission, in the first instance, on 25.05.2015.Before that date, thepetitioner shall submit its response to the documents which were filed on 19.02.2015. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. We are making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of thematter and that the setting aside of the order dated 24.02.2015 shall not come in the wayof the Settlement Commission on taking a view on the matter. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MAY 18, 2015SR SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J