2020 (3) TMI 886 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds Settlement Commission order; Assessee can present new SC decisions for consideration

Sultan Pillai & Sons Versus The Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, The Union of India represented by The Chairman, The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Cochin, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Court concluded that the Settlement Commission's order, challenged by the Assessee, did not require interference. The Assessee was granted liberty to ... Settlement commission order - Income Tax Settlement Commission, in exercise of their powers under Section 245F(1) read with Section 154 - waiver granted u/s 234A, no case for waiver of interest under Section 234B for any of the assessment years involved and the interest u/s.234B shall be charged upto the date of order under Section 245D(4) - Assessee Mr.N.Prasad submitted that the order passed by the Settlement Commission, impugned in the present writ petition, deserves to be interfered with in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT -Vs- M.H.Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and “Brij Lal -Vs- CIT [2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT]. - HELD THAT:- We are satisfied that the present impugned order of the Settlement Commission does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. If the Assessee intends to make any submission on the basis of any subsequent Supreme Court decision, which according to the Assessee is applicable to the facts of the present case, he is at liberty to move the Settlement Commission itself. Since apparently the impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the remand order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself, if there is any subsequent development or law or change of position of law at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is open to the Assessee to move the Settlement Commission itself for applying the correct position of law. Therefore, with the aforesaid liberty given to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Issues:1. Interpretation of the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245F(1) read with Section 154 of the Income Tax Act.2. Application of legal precedents cited by the petitioner.3. Compliance with the remand order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.4. Justification for the Settlement Commission's order and the possibility of seeking redressal based on subsequent legal developments.Analysis:1. The writ petition was filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission under Section 245F(1) read with Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The order included decisions on waiver of interest under Section 234A, interest under Section 234B, and authorized re-computation of interest under Section 234B by the Assessing Officer.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Settlement Commission's order should be challenged based on legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases such as 'CIT -Vs- M.H.Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC Page 633,' 'Brij Lal -Vs- CIT (2011) 1 S.C.C.Page 1,' and 'Kakadia Builders (P) Ltd., -Vs- CIT' from 2019. The petitioner sought interference citing these precedents.3. The Respondent, representing the Revenue, contended that the impugned order was a result of a remand order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specifically noted in Para 12.3, related to the Assessee's case. It was argued that the Settlement Commission's decision was in compliance with the remand order and the prevailing legal position at that time.4. The Court, after hearing both parties, concluded that the Settlement Commission's order did not warrant interference at that stage. The Court granted the Assessee liberty to present any subsequent Supreme Court decisions relevant to the case before the Settlement Commission for consideration. Since the impugned order was passed in compliance with the remand order, any changes in the legal landscape could be addressed through the Settlement Commission. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, allowing the Assessee the opportunity to seek redressal based on updated legal positions.This comprehensive analysis covers the interpretation of the Settlement Commission's order, the application of legal precedents, compliance with the remand order, and the rationale behind the Court's decision not to interfere with the impugned order.