Dismissed

Surender Kumar v. Income Tax Settlement Commission

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2013CWP/3885/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed writ petitions challenging orders dismissing settlement applications. Court held that delay in furnishing materials constituted non-cooperation, rendering the dismissal legal under settled principles restricting judicial review to procedure.

What did the court decide?

Final orders of the Settlement Commission dismissing the settlement applications were held legal and valid.

Surender Kumar Vs Income Tax… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992 & other connected matters

¶3

Date of Decision:26.04.2013

Surinder Kumar

.....Petitioner

Vs.

Income-tax Settlement Commission & another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present:None for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶12

This order shall dispose of the afore-mentioned writ petition along with other writ petitions mentioned in the foot note of this order challenging the order dated 17.7.1989 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (for short, `the Commission'). By the said order, 16 applications filed by the Anand Group in the month of March, 1983 consisting of 11 applications under the Income Tax Act and 5 applications under the Wealth Tax Act were dismissed by the Commission. The Commission recorded that there was over-all non-cooperation on the part of the applicants at all stage and that no material has been furnished by the applicants on the basis of which a reasonable order of settlement can be passed. Consequently, liberty was given to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment in accordance with law.

¶13

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.02 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992

¶15

-2-

¶16

In the writ petitions, the petitioners have referred to an application submitted in December, 1990 for recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act matters were handled by Shri V.P. Anand, who was detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short the 1974 Act) on 06.10.1988 and was released on 06.10.1990 and, therefore, the question of any willful or intentional non-cooperation could not be inferred against the petitioners.

¶17

We find that the entire claim of the petitioners to dispute the order passed by the Commission is untenable. The petitioners have filed applications for settlement on 25.03.1983 in respect of assessment years 1976-77 to 1982-83. Such applications came to be decided on 17.07.1989. A perusal of the impugned order dated 17.07.1989 shows that the petitioners were given notice to submit statement of facts within 30 days on 29.06.1983. But such statement of facts were filed only on 27.12.1984 i.e after more than one year and four months. It was also noticed that even Deputy Director of Investigations has reported that information sought by the revenue from the Petitioners have not been furnished in spite of five opportunities granted. The Commission also found that the petitioners have not furnished any material on the basis of which reasonable order of settlement can be passed.

¶18

Thereafter, applications have been submitted to recall the said order inter-alia on the ground that Shri V.P. Anand, one of the members of the Anand Group was detained on 6.10.1988 under the 1974 Act, therefore, there was no willful non-cooperation to the Commission.

¶19

We do not find any merit in the said plea. The applications for

¶20

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.02 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

-3-

¶22

C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992

¶23

settlement were filed in 1983, but the detention order came to be passed in 1988 i.e. after five years. In fact, the assessee was required to co-operate from the date of filing of the application and also produce material on the basis of which settlement can be arrived at. Neither the petitioners have furnished sufficient material before the Commission nor co-operated with the Commissioner to furnish report, therefore, We find that the reasoning given by the Commission cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. The scope of judicial review against the order of Settlement Commission has been delineated in M/s R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing

¶24

Das v. Settlement Commission (IT & WT), (1989) 1 SCC 628 , when the

¶25

Court observed:

¶26

“In exercise of our power of judicial review of the decision of the Settlement Commission we are concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with validity of the order. See the observations of Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1 WLR 1155 . Judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process.”

¶27

Later in another judgment reported as Shriyans Prasad Jain v.

¶28

Income Tax Officer & others, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 727 , the Court observed

¶29

as under:

¶30

“19. Mr Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this Court would not go into questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi 1993 Supp (3) SCC 389 this Court can interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be “contrary to any of the provisions of the Act”. To the same effect is the earlier decision of this Court in R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1989) 1 SCC 628. ”

¶31

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity

¶32

in the orders passed by the Commission, which may warrant interference in

¶33

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.02 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992

¶35

-4-

¶36

exercise of power of judicial review by this Court.

¶37

The writ petitions are dismissed.

¶38

( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶39

April 26, 2013 ( RITU BAHRI ) renu/Vimal JUDGE

¶40

C.W.P. No.3886 of 1992 M/s Punjab Allied Industries Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶41

C.W.P. No.3987 of 1992 Shri V.P. Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶42

C.W.P. No.3988 of 1992 Mrs. Raj Rani Anand Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶43

C.W.P. No.3989 of 1992 Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶44

C.W.P. No.3992 of 1992 M/s Oriental Industrial Corporation Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶45

C.W.P. No.3993 of 1992

¶46

M/s Vedsons Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶47

C.W.P. No.4001 of 1992 Shri Walaiti Ram Chadha Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶48

C.W.P. No.4002 of 1992 Shri Vedsons Steel & Wires Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶49

C.W.P. No.4081 of 1992 Sh. Surinder Kumar Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶50

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.02 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

-5-

¶52

C.W.P. No.3885 of 1992

¶53

C.W.P. No.4082 of 1992 Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth-tax Settlement Commission and another

¶54

C.W.P. No.4083 of 1992

¶55

Sh. Ashok Kumar Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Incometax and another

¶56

C.W.P. No.4084 of 1992 Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another

¶57

C.W.P. No.4085 of 1992 Sh. V.P. Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another

¶58

C.W.P. No.4086 of 1992 Sh. Subash Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another

¶59

C.W.P. No.4087 of 1992 Sh. Subash Kumar Anand Vs. Wealth Tax Settlement Commission and another

¶60

C.W.P. No.4088 of 1992 Mrs. Aruna Anand Vs. Settlement Commission Income-tax and another

¶61

Kumar Vimal 2013.05.02 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surender Kumar v. Income Tax Settlement Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar v. Income Tax Settlement Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Eicher Good Earth Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

M/S Punjab Alide Industries Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission

Raj Rani Anand Vs Income Tax Seettlement Commission

Wailati Ram Chada Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission