JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
321
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 321
321
JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2352-2353 of 2019)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Income Tax Act, 1961 – ss.245, 245C(1), 245HA, 245D –
Application u/s.245C(1) was filed by the appellants before the
Settlement Commission – Order dtd. 31.03.2008 passed by the
Settlement Commission – High Court while dismissing the writ
petition, filed by the appellants challenging the show cause notice
for re-assessment issued in terms of order dtd. 31.03.2008, observed
that the said order was a nullity – Justification of – Held: Settlement
Commission specifically observed in the order dtd. 31.03.2008 that
it was not practicable to examine the records, investigate the case
for proper settlement and give adequate opportunity to the applicant
and the Department as laid down in s.245D(4) however, it passed
the order to comply with the directions of the High Court to dispose
of the application on or before 31.03.2008 – Thus, in view of the
manner in which the Settlement Commission disposed of the
application u/s.245, High Court was justified in observing that the
order passed by the Settlement Commission was a nullity and cannot
be said to be an order in the eye of law – Order dtd. 31.03.2008 set
aside – Subsequent assessment/re-assessment order passed by the
A.O also set aside – Matter remitted to the Settlement Commission/
Interim Board for fresh decision following the due procedure u/
s.245.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2352-
2353 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2017 in Writ Petition
(Misc. Bench) No.4858 of 2008 and dated 18.07.2017 in Review Petition
No. 50944 of 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow.
Pawanshree Agrawal, Raktim Gogoi, Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Balbir Singh, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Yadav, Rupesh
Kumar, Sundeep Pandhi, Arjun Garg, Vimla Sinha, Rupender Singhmar,
I. Prasad, V. Gautam, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow, by which the Division Bench of
the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition No. 4858 of 2008 preferred
by the appellants herein, the original writ petitioners have preferred the
present Appeals. The subsequent order passed by the High Court
dismissing the review application is also the subject-matter of the present
Appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present Appeals in a nut shell are as
under:-
i)
That a search was conducted under Section 132 of the
Income Tax, Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on the business
premises as well as the residence of the partners.
ii)
Notices under Section 153A were issued to all the appellants
for the Assessment Years 1998-1999 to 2004-2005.
iii)
The return of income was filed by the appellants under
Section 153A of the Act for the aforesaid Assessment
Years.
iv)
An application under Section 245C(1) of the Act was filed
by the appellants before the Income Tax Settlement
Commission (for short “the Settlement Commission”).
v)
As per Section 245HA, inserted by the Finance Act, 2007,
the application was to be decided by the Settlement
Commission on or before 31.03.2008, failing which the
proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall stand
abated.
vi)
The High Court, by way of an interim order, directed the
Settlement Commission to dispose of the application under
Section 245D of the Act by 31.03.2008.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
vii)
By order dated 31.03.2008, the Settlement Commission
disposed of the proceedings and settled the undisclosed
income at Rs. 59,00,000/-. The Settlement Commission also
passed an order that the CIT/AO may take such action as
appropriate in respect of the matters, not placed before the
Commission by the applicant, as per the provisions of Section
245F(4) of the Act. The Settlement Commission passed
the following order:-
“In the abovementioned cases, the Hon’ble High Court
of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow has passed orders dated
19.03.2008 directing the Settlement Commission to
complete the proceedings u/s 245D(4) by 31.03.2008.
2. The Rule 9 Report in this case has been received.
3. In all, the Principal Bench of the Commission has till
26.3.2008 received more than 325 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.