2016 (7) TMI 1219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dra Menon, Acting Chief justice; and, Shri Anurag Shrivastava. JJ. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the petitioner (s).  Shri Sumit Nema with Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the respondent (s). O R D E R  As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three writ petitions filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) MP, Bhopal, they are being heard analo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 254-D(1) on 24.3.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. After the application was so allowed, notices were issued to the petitioner/Department for submitting their report under section 245D(2B) vide Annexure P/2 on 24.3.2013. The Report as required was submitted by the Department on 28.4.2015 vide Annexure P/3, but thereafter without taking note of the Report and the objections ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(2C) without taking note of the Report of the Department is unsustainable and the prayer made is that the matter be remanded back and proceeded with. 4. Refuting the aforesaid Shri Sumit Nema, learned counsel for the respondent, invites our attention to an order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Jayaprakash Narayanan, (2009) 184 TAXMAN 85 (SC), to say th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 7. We find that merely because the application filed under section 245-D(1) has been admitted and the Report of the Department under section 245-D(2) has not been considered, no case is made out for interference. The matter is still pending before the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner can raise all the gr....