SANDEEP SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CWP/10540/2013

AI Insights

In this case, Sandeep Singh, a dealer in immovable property, challenged the abatement of proceedings by the Settlement Commission regarding his income tax assessments for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11. Following a search and seizure operation under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Singh had surrendered a substantial amount of income and filed an application under Section 245C(1) for settlement, which was later abated by the Commission. The High Court's decision referenced similar cases and precedents, particularly from the Bombay High Court, which had addressed the arbitrary nature of a cut-off date for such proceedings, emphasizing that abatement should only occur if the delay was caused by the applicant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 734904 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Jai Bhagwan Om Parkash v. Union of India and others, Star Television News Ltd. v. Union of India and others, M.D. Sanaul Haque v. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R S KHOSLA; RAJESH KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: BALJINDER SRA
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Income surrender; Search and seizure; Settlement commission; Abating of proceedings
• Section: 245C(1); 132(1); 142; 245HA; 153A(1); 226

Judgement Text

"CWP No. 10540 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10540 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.1.2014 Sandeep Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY. PRESENT: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for respondent No.4. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 11258 of 2013 Annexure P-4 filed along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 10540 of 2013 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 31.3.2013 passed by respondent No.2 abating of proceedings before Settlement Commission under Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the Singh Gurbachan 2014.03.03 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 10540 of 2013 -2- present petition as narrated therein are that the petitioner is a dealer dealing in sale and purchase of immovable property/land at Amritsar. A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted on 21.8.2009 at his business and residential premises. During the course of said search, various records including account books, computer and the stock-in- trade were seized. The petitioner surrendered income amounting to ` 2.65 crores for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 under Section 132(4) of the Act subject to no penalty and prosecution. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle IV, Amritsar issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 142 of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08 to produce or caused to be produced before him books of account. Respondent No.4 also issued notice under Section 153A(1) of the Act for preparing true and correct return of the income for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2010-11. On 28.9.2011, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-1) under Section 245C(1) of the Act before respondent No.2. He also deposited the entire tax amounting to ` 1,01,44,839/-. Respondent No.2 passed the order of abatement of the proceedings under Section 245HA(1)(iv) of the Act read with explanation appended thereto on 10.4.2013 (Annexure P-2) holding that the time period specified therein had elapsed and the proceedings had not concluded. However, no finding was given as to whether the petitioner was at fault or not. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the delay in decision of the application filed before the Settlement Commission was on account of the conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, the order dated 31.3.2013 was rightly passed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find Singh Gurbachan 2014.03.03 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 10540 of 2013 -3- any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the revenue-respondent as there is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid plea. 5. It could not be controverted by learned counsel for the revenue that the present writ petition stands concluded by the decision of this Court in M/s Jai Bhagwan Om Parkash v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 3532 of 2008 decided on 10.10.2012 wherein following the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Star Television News Ltd. v. Union of India and others (2009) 317 ITR 66 (Bom) and Jharkhand High Court in M.D. Sanaul Haque v. Union of India (2012) 250 CTR (Jharkhand) 218, it was noticed as under and the writ petition was disposed of in terms of Star Television News Ltd's case (supra):- “4. It would not be essential to delve into the factual matrix as learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the aforesaid writ petitions stand concluded by the decision of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Star Television News Ltd. v. Union of India and others (2009) 317 ITR 66 (Bom) and Jharkhand High Court in M.D. Sanaul Haque v. Union of India (2012) 250 CTR (Jharkhand) 218 wherein identical issue has already been adjudicated. It was further stated that this Court in CWP No. 18244 of 2007 (Smt. Satish Bala Malhotra v. Union of India and others) decided on 21.9.2012 following the aforesaid decisions had disposed of the writ petition in terms of Singh Gurbachan 2014.03.03 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 10540 of 2013 -4- the decision of Bombay High Court in Star Television News Ltd's case (supra). The Bombay High Court had held as under:- “From the above discussion having arrived at a conclusion that fixing the cut off date as March 31, 2008, was arbitrary the provisions of section 245HA(1)(iv) to that extent will be also arbitrary. We have also held that it is possible to read down the provisions of Section 245HA(1)(iv) in the manner set out earlier. This recourse has been taken in order to avoid holding the provisions as unconstitutional. Having so read, we would have to read section 245HA(1)(iv) to mean that in the event the application could not be disposed of for any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant who has made an application under Section 245C. Consequently, only such proceedings would abate under section 245HA(1)(iv). Considering the above, the Settlement Commission is to consider whether the proceedings had been delayed on account of any reasons attributable on the part of the applicant. If it comes to the conclusion that it was not so, then to proceed with the application as if not abated. Respondent No.1 if desirous of early Singh Gurbachan 2014.03.03 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 10540 of 2013 -5- disposal of the pending applications, to consider the appointment of more Benches of the Settlement Commission, more so at the Benches where there is heavy pendency like Delhi and Mumbai.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India did not dispute that the issue stands concluded against the revenue by the decision of Bombay High Court in Star Television News Ltd's case (supra) except to plead that Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India against the said decision is pending adjudication but no interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court thereon. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in view of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Star Television News Ltd's case (supra).” 6. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court in M/s Jai Bhagwan Om Parkash's case (supra). (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 10, 2014 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) gbs JUDGE Singh Gurbachan 2014.03.03 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh "