TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (3) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., jewellery and other valuable articles, were seized under section 132 of the Income-tax Act and were retained by the respondents by virtue of the order made under section 132(5) of the Act whereby the petitioner's liability to tax, interest and penalty for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 were assessed, the heaviest liability being for the year 1988-89 amounting to over Rs. 55,00,000 on a summary assessment. The assets were released to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 acting under the proviso to sub-section 132(5) of the Act upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantees equivalent to the value of the assets, and giving a further undertaking to arrange deposit of the equivalent amount of cash within three months or else the amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fifteen days before expiry of the period of guarantee, failing which the Department shall be at liberty to encash the guarantee so furnished. Annexure P-9 is quashed and respondent No. 1 is directed to hear the petitioner and decide the application under section 220(6) of the Act afresh. This petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 1 on November 15, 1991, and on such further dates as respondent No. 1 may direct. " The petitioner has sought review of the aforesaid order dated November 11, 1991, and has prayed that the enforcement of 50% of the bank guarantees by non-applicant No. 1 be deleted from the order and the direction to appear before the respondent/non-applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to proceed with a settlement application commences only after an order is passed by the Settlement Commission to proceed with the application under section 245C and it is not disputed in this case that the Settlement Commission has not passed any order to proceed with the application of the petitioner under section 245C of the Income-tax Act. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in Deen Dayal Didwania v. Union of India [1986] 160 ITR 12, in support of his submission that there is no bar on the Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the assessment in any pending case merely because an application for settlement has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any part of the impugned order suffering from grave or palpable errors or errors apparent on the face of the record so as to call for interference with the order tinder review. This petition for review is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, prayed for extension of time for renewing the bank guarantees to the extent of the remaining amount of 50% of the original guarantees furnished by the petitioner in this case as well as by the other petitioner in the other connected case, M. C. C. No. 426 of 1991. Learned counsel for the Department, however, opposes the prayer and contends that non-compliance with the order under review in not f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the order dated November 11, 1991, in M. P. No. 1417 of 1991 if not already encashed, shall remain stayed till the next date, i.e., November 21, 1991. Thereafter, on November 12, 1991, learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application I. A. No. 5938 of 1991, for a further order stating that the Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ujjain, instead of encashing the bank guarantee, gave a demand draft dated November 15, 1991, for Rs. 20,00,000 drawn in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal, P. D. Account, Bhopal, and that the said demand draft had not been encashed by the Syndicate Bank, Bhopal, and prayed for a direction that the said demand draft be not encashed till the decision of the review petition and the stay application. O....