Remitting Cases u/s 245HA

Om Metals & Minerals Pvt.Ltd

ITSC Special Bench
193 ITR 57              

The Income-tax Department, being an interested party in proceedings before the Commission, is not debarred from approaching the Commission to safeguard tax revenues and to pass appropriate orders for recovery of statutory tax demand created in the assessments made by the assessing authorities prior to admission of assessee's settlement petition.

The word "case" in section 245HA(1), which restores the jurisdiction to the Assessing Authorities for its continuation from the state when they were so divested, cannot be given the restricted meaning assigned u/s 245A(b). It would encompass all proceedings taken in respect of the "case".

The assessment made by the Assessing Officer before the admission u/s 245D(1) of the settlement petition u/s 245C(1) subsists even after such admission.

[Top l Back]

Sh. Ajay Prasad Khaitan
S.A.No. 5/17/94/2/IT DT. 25.08.1994

ITSC Calcutta              
Order dated 06.10.1998

Whether deliberate non payment of admitted tax payable u/s 245D(2A) is non-cooperation within the meaning of section 245HA(1).

Held yes. The very rational of settling a case is lost if ever the admitted tax is not paid and amounts to non-cooperation.

[Top l Back]

Shri Omprakash Mittal, Siliguri
SA No 1/1/3/89-IT

ITSC Calcutta         
Order dated 28.1.99

In the above case order u/s 245D(4) was passed by Settlement Commission on 18.9.90. The CIT - WB VII made a prayer that the order be declared void and immunities be withdrawn under Section 245 D(6) for the reason that it was obtained by fraud etc. The CIT referred to enquiries conducted by the CBI to maintain that the loans worth 1.50 crore were fake and the parties non-existent.

The bench looked into the records in the context of CITs petition and CBI report and issued show-cause notice to the applicant which was replied by them, maintaining that no prima-facie was made out by the CIT and no opportunity was allowed to the applicant to be heard.

It was held that the department had not established that 245D(4) order was obtained by fraud. Therefore the Settlement Order cannot be declared null and void. The bench opined that it was not for the Bench to re-appraise the facts and re-evaluate the evidence produced before earlier bench in course of hearing.

[Top l Back]