The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge's order setting aside a Settlement Commission re-assessment. The Court held the single judge correctly interpreted that the Commission lacks power to proceed after a finding of no true disclosure.
The writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2018
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.A.No.2535 of 2010
and M.P Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2012
G.Jayaraman Alwarthirunagar Annexe, Madras-87. ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Settlement Commission (Additional Bench), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 488 and 489, Anna Salai, Chennai-35. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle I (3) Chennai-34. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 04.08.2010 made in W.P.No.11882 of 1998. PRAYER IN WP.11882/1998
Writ petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in proceedings S.A.No.21/111/79/94-IT dated 22.04.1998 on the file of the first respondent and quash same.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar for Mr.N.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Standing Counsel (T)
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.)
The appellant has approached the Settlement Commission seeking certain relief. By the impugned order, the Settlement Commission while holding that the appellant has not disclosed the true and full disclosure nonetheless made a re-assessment. The re-assessment made was put into challenge before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, after having found that the Settlement Commission does not have the power to undertake an exercise of reassessment, which would only lie with the Assessing Authority, incidentally while allowing the writ petition, set aside the order of the Settlement Commission with liberty to the Assessing Authority to proceed further.
find any error in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also
dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
raa
To
1.The Settlement Commission
(Additional Bench),
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
488 and 489, Anna Salai,
Chennai-35.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Central Circle I (3)
Chennai-34.
+1cc to Mr.N.MUTHUKUMAR, Advocate, S.R.No.37337
W.A.No.2535 of 2010
SKV(CO)
TR(27/06/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a re-assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act should have been preferred before the Settlement Commission under Section 245(1).
Whether the learned single judge erred in setting aside the Settlement Commission's order, which had already concluded the appellant failed to make a true and full disclosure.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Jayaraman
The Settlement Commission
The Assistant Commissioner
M.M. Sundresh
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
