TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pass an order under section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] in case of the petitioners in the same terms of settlement as pronounced by the Settlement Commission on conclusion of the hearing on 27/28.01.2021. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and survey operation in case of K Star Group was carried out on 17.08.2016 and cases were centralized with the respondent No. 2-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4, Surat. Thereafter, notices were issued under section 153A to initiate the re-assessment proceedings. 4. The petitioners opted to file application for settlement under section 245C (1) on 21.12.2018 and thereafter, before the Settlement Commission disclosing additional income. 5. The applications filed by the petitioners were accepted and order under section 245D (1) of the Act was passed by the Settlement Commission. 6. Thereafter, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Surat, issued a letter under section 245D (2B) calling for certain information which were supplied to the Settlement Commission by the petitioners. 7. It appears that after the receipt of such reports, a copy was forwarded to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appropriate formal order on or before 31st March, 2021: "1. We have heard Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Bandish Soparkar learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Mauna Bhatt and Mr. Karan Sanghani learned counsels representing respondent No. 2. 2. Although notices were issued and served on respondent No. 1, no one has put in appearance. 3. By means of this petition under Article 226, the petitioners have in effect prayed for the writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to pass an order under section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance with law. 4. The submission of Shri Soparkar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that upon filing application for the settlement under section 245D, the proceedings took place and thereafter, arguments were also heard finally by the respondent No. 1-Settlement Commission on 04.01.2021, 05.01.2021, and 28.01.2021. The arguments were concluded. The respondent No. 1 formally pronounced the case as settled and also noted the terms of settlement. However, the only text of the order under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner and as recorded in the above order and if they are found to be correct, it may proceed to pass/issue appropriate formal orders on or before 31.03.2021 and if such facts are not found to be correct, the Commission would be free to proceed in accordance with law in its own wisdom and discretion. Direct service is permitted." 13. By Communication dated 30.03.2021, the then Members of the Settlement Commission confirmed that the facts stated by the petitioners were correct that on 27/28.01.2021, the arguments and hearings were concluded and Settlement Commission formally pronounced the case as settled and also noted terms of the settlement, however, the order could not be passed by the Settlement Commission pursuant to the order passed by this Court as the tenure of one of the members came to an end on 26.03.2021 which was the day of receipt of copy of the order of this Court by the Settlement Commission and the Vice Chairman of the Settlement Commission was out of station on 26.03.2021 and was not in position to travel to Mumbai due to Covid protocols. 14. The petitioners thereafter received an Email communication from the Interim Board for Settlement on 23.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be written/passed/ issued till 31.01.2021. Finance bill, 2021 was presented on the floor of the parliament on 01.02.2021 wherein there were certain proposals amending the provisions relating Income Tax Settlement Commission. As a further action could be taken. result, no further, no further action could be taken. 5. Now, we are in receipt of the Order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, dated 25-03-2021-Special Civil Application No. 4407 of 2021 wherein the Hon'ble Court vide para-7 of their Order have directed to verify the facts as stated by the petitioner and as recorded in para No. 4 of their Order and if found correct, proceed to pass/issue appropriate formal orders on or before 31.03.2021. 6. We have gone through the Hon'ble High Court's Order and it is hereby confirmed that the hearing was concluded on 28-01-2021 and the terms of settlement were also pronounced. 7. However we are not in a position to write/pass/issue the order as per direction of Hon'ble High Court due the following reasons: i) The Tenure of one of the Member, Shri Ravindra Kumar Shrivastava, with ITSC is coming to an end as 26.03.2021 itself is his last....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal circumstance or a review is asked for and is granted. When the judgment is pronounced, parties present in the court know the conclusion in the matter and often on the basis of such pronouncement, they proceed to conduct their affairs. If what is pronounced in court is not acted upon, certainly litigants would be prejudiced. Confidence of the litigants in the judicial process would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in open court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional feature and if there be any such, the same should appear from the record of the case. in the instant matter, we find that there is no material at all to show as to what let the Division Bench which had pronounced the judgment in open court not to authenticate the same by signing it. In such a situation the judgment delivered has to be taken as final and the writ petition should not have been placed for fresh hearing. The subsequent order dismissing the writ petition was not available to be made once it is held that the writ petition stood disposed of by the judgment of the Division Bench on 28.7.1986. 10. The record of the proceedings of the High Court which is before us does not contain the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 has tendered the affidavit wherein it is stated as under: "2. It is submitted that the department contacted the then Ld. CIT(DR)(ITSC) who could not confirm the fact of Conclusion of Settlement and referred to the official Case Diary notings. Thereafter, Ld. CIT (IBS), Mumbai was contacted via email to provide copy of Case Note sheets who replied that all case records have been transferred to IBS-1 Delhi. Accordingly, further, Office of CIT(IBS-1), New Delhi was contacted to provide any case diary noting and relevant documents who have responded by stating that "... there is no order sheet entry in any of the applicant/petitioner's case showing any conclusion of the proceedings. There is an offer letter dated 28.01.2021 from the petitioners stating the voluntary offer of income and requesting conclusion of the proceedings. However, there is no mention on the Order Sheet maintained that such voluntary offer of income by the applicant has been accepted by the then Settlement Commission, Mumbai and the hearing has been concluded...". Copies of Order sheet have already been placed on record. That therefore in so far as the affidavit of the Ld. Member of the erst....