Maintainability of Application u/s 245 C(1)

M/s Orient Chemical Industries vs ITSC

96 Taxman 622 (Del) (1998)

In this case, the Settlement Commission after calling for the report of the Commissioner provided the assessee with the copy of his objections merely three days before the hearing. The applicant's request for adjournment was declined by the Commission, forming an opinion that the assessee was not co-operating with it. On a writ before the Delhi High Court, it was held that the right of hearing before the Settlement Commission is a valuable right of a petitioner flowing from the tenants of natural justice and requires an assessee petitioner being afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing by the Settlement Commission. After admitting the writ, the Settlement Commission was directed to afford the petitioner assessee the opportunity of hearing and then decide the application u/s 245C(1) in accordance with the law.

[Top l Back]

M/s Pyarelal Jain & Co. and others
S.A. No 18/1/467/89-IT
dt. 06.11.1989 

ITSC (Spl Bench)
Order dated 1.1.1991
55 Taxman 345

In interpreting the definition of a case under Section 245A(b), " rectification proceedings" under section 154 cannot be imported into the expressions "Assessment" or "Reassessment" because each word has to be construed in its specified context.

The Chairman has the power to constitute a larger Bench consisting of five members to consider a matter involving a difference of opinion between its Members in terms of section 245 BA. This clarified the legal position even before the insertion of sub-section (5A) in section 245 BA by the Finance (No 2) Act 1991.

[Top l Back]