2003 (11) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....c. It had also started the work of construction of buildings. On June 16,1993, the appellant's residential and business premises were searched under section 132 of the Income-tax Act. Cash amount of Rs. 5,90,000 and jewellery weighing 3,839.100 gms., which was valued at Rs. 16,12,422 were seized. From the business premises a cash amount of Rs. 1,75,000 and 18 US dollars were taken into possession. While the proceedings were pending, the appellant filed an application dated February 27,1996, before the Settlement Commission. This application was filed under section 245C(1). On June 21,1999, the Commission passed an order under section 245D(4). The cases for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1994-95 were settled. Part of the interest as leviabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thus, it prayed that the notice, a copy of which has been produced as exhibit P1, be quashed. The matter was considered by the learned single judge. The copies of the interim orders passed in certain other cases by the Madras High Court and their Lordships of the Supreme Court were noticed. It was observed that the writ petitioner could bring the facts and the orders to the notice of the Commission. In case, the maintainability of the notice was questioned, the matter shall be examined by the competent authority. The writ petition was, accordingly, closed. Not satisfied with the judgment, the writ petitioner has filed the present appeal. Mr. Kurian, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Commission is not competent to i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fication is one such power. Resultantly, the action of the Commission in giving notice to the appellant suffers from no infirmity. There is no jurisdictional error which may vitiate the initiation of proceedings. Mr. Kurian contends that in similar circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court had entertained a special leave petition and stayed the proceedings before the Settlement Commission. A copy of the order passed by their Lordships in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.11160-11171 of 2003 from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court has been produced as exhibit P3. This order reads as under: "Issue notice. Until further orders operation of the impugned order of the Settlement Commission dated March 7,2003, shall remain stay....