High Court Of Bombay
CIT vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission & ORS.
Section 245C, 245D, 245H,
Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94
F.I. Rebello & J.H. Bhatia, JJ.
Writ Petn. Nos. 2191, 2742, 2778 to 2780 & 2832 to 2835 of 1999 and 57, 63 to 66, 73, 92, 93, 161, 177, 192, 193 &Â 1965 of 2000
8th July, 2009
Counsel appeared :
B.M. Chatterji, for the Petitioners : S.N. Inamdar with P.J. Pardiwala & Mrs. Vasanti B. Patel, for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT
J.H. Bhatia, J. :
This is a group of petitions filed by the CIT challenging the orders dt. 29th Jan., 1999 passed by the IT Settlement Commissioner/respondent No. 1. All these petitions pertain to the applications made by the Ajmera Group of firms and their partners under s. 245C of the IT Act for settlement of the tax liability for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94. Ajmera Group consisted of mainly four firms, namely, Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, Yogi Corporation, Vijay Nagar Corporation and Ajmera Housing Corporation, Pune. They are all engaged in the business of land developers, builders and contractors. Main business was run by Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay and had undertaken development and construction of majority projects in Shastri Nagar, Andheri, Bombay. Project was under development and construction in phases since 1986. In January, 1989 and again in December, 1992, searches were conducted in the premises of Ajmera Group under s. 132(1) and voluminous books of accounts, loose papers and other documents were seized during the second search. 16 such files and loose papers were seized during search of the residence of one B.L. Vora, accountant of this Ajmera Group, who was their confidant. A computer was also found at the residence of said Vora from which hard disc was taken out and seized. Papers were seized including trial balance dt. 31st Aug., 1992 which was allegedly prepared in the normal course on the basis of information in the hard disc. Another trial balance sheet was prepared on the basis for the period on 17th Nov. 1992 on the basis of receipts and expenses accounts from 1st April, 1981 to 17th Nov., 1992. At the time of search, said Vora had tried to run away with several documents and papers and during the chase, he had thrown the same in some gutter but they were finally retrieved. Vora admitted in his statement that he was maintaining secret books and documents in code words as per the instructions given to him by Chhotalal Ajmera, who was controlling the whole Ajmera Group.
For the sake of convenience, facts related to Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay, which is the main firm and in which other firms and partners have stakes, may be taken up. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay disclosed additional income of Rs. 1,94,33,580 for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94, in addition to the income already shownin the returns submitted by them, with their application under s. 245C. They claimed to have received certain on-money, out of which 90 per cent was spent for the purpose of business and only 10 per cent was the actual income. However, on 19th Sept., 1994, they revised additional income to Rs. 11.41 crore for the aforesaid period.
It is material to note that total disclosure of Rs. 17.03 crore was made for entire group including the amount of Rs. 11.41 crore for Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay. In the report of the CIT dt. 27th Jan., 1994 under s. 245D(1), the total income of Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay was to the tune of Rs. 223.56 crore. Another report dt. 30th Aug., 1995 submitted by the CIT (Departmental Representative) to the Settlement Commission pointed out undisclosed income of Rs. 114.85 crore, which included on-money, investment in business properties and business assets
and loans received. As per r. 8, another report dt. 30th Aug., 1995 was submitted by the CIT. It appears that certain duplication and mistakes were pointed out and, therefore, a rectified report with a note about re-conciliation was submitted on 20th Oct., 1997 by the CIT to the Settlement Commission and as per this final report, total undisclosed income was to the tune of Rs. 187.20 crore. It included amount of Rs. 42.57 crore towards on-money and also several investments and amounts received as well as unjustifiable expenses and withdrawals shown in the books. Respondents offered additional income of Rs. 2.76 crore and further amount of Rs. 7 crore to cover up certain discrepancies or other disputable additions to the revised additional income as per Annexure dt. 19th Sept.,1994 to settle the case. As per this final revision, besides the amount of income shown in the returns, an amount of Rs. 21.17 crore as additional income on completed projects and further an amount ofs Rs. 20.36 crore on incomplete projects was disclosed/offered. Settlement Commission passed the final order under s. 245D(4) on 29th Jan., 1999 accepting the disclosures and additions made by the respondents and worked out details for different assessment years, as per the Annexs. A1 to A5 with the said order and accordingly, tax liability was fixed on the basis of on-money received for the completed projects and directed that on-money received on the uncompleted projects, shall be deemed to be advance receipts and the same shall be adjusted as on-money as and when the said projects would be completed. The Settlement Commission imposed token penalty of Rs. 50 lakh as against the minimum leviable penalty of Rs. 562.87 lakh as per its own calculations, in view of co-operation given by the respondents in the proceedings. Penalty was also to be distributed in the assessment years as shown in the order. Settlement Commission also granted immunity against the prosecution and in respect of other penalty under the Act. Settlement Commission also passed separate orders in respect of each of the applications made by the different firms and partners of Ajmera Group.
The said order dt. 29th Jan., 1999 passed by the Settlement Commission came to be challenged in this group of petitions. On behalf of the Revenue, main contentions against the order of Settlement Commission are thus; Firstly, the respondents had not made true and full disclosure about their undisclosed incomes along with the applications under s. 245C on 30th Sept., 1993. On that day, though it disclosed additional income of Rs. 1.94 crore only and this was revised along with confidential Annexure dt. 19th Sept., 1994 to Rs. 11.41 crore. Not only this, they made further additions of Rs. 2.76 crore and Rs. 7 crore. It is contended that as they had failed to make true and full disclosures at the time of making applications, applications were liable to be rejected on that count only and there should not have been any further proceedings. Secondly, as per the provisions of s. 245D(1), when the application is made for settlement, a report is required to be called from CIT and after the application is allowed to be heard, a further report is required to be called by making confidential Annexure available to the CIT. In the present case, such report was called on the basis of initial disclosure of additional income of Rs. 1.94 crore as per the application dt. 30th Sept., 1993. However, no such opportunity was given to the Revenue to submit a report on the basis of revised confidential Annexure dt. 30th Sept., 1994 and thus, there was breach of the provisions of s. 245D and the rules thereunder. Thirdly, as per the report of the CIT dt. 30th Aug., 1995, as rectified on 20th Oct., 1997, total undisclosed income of Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay was Rs. 187.2 crore. The Settlement Commission considered only the receipt of on-money but ignored the other receipts and investments. Lastly the conduct of the respondents was not such that penalty could be drastically reduced or waived as was done by the Settlement Commission. With these contentions, the Revenue prayed for setting aside and quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
Before proceeding with the matter, it will be useful to state that earlier this Court, by the judgment dt. 28th July,
2000, had allowed this writ petition and had set aside the order of the Settlement Commission on the ground, besides other things, that the Settlement Commission had not given any findings as to whether there was full and true disclosure of the income. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration of the matter keeping all the questions open. Judgment of this Court was challenged by the respondents in group of appeals and by the order dt. 11th July, 2006, Supreme Court set aside the order of this Court and remanded back the petition for fresh hearing mainly on the ground that the senior counsel appearing for the assessees had pointed out that though the second report submitted by the CIT on 20th Oct., 1997 estimating undisclosed income of Rs. 42.5 crore approximately coincides and equals to the figure arrived at by the Settlement Commission in the final order and that report had not been taken into consideration by the High Court. Their Lordships did not express any opinion on the merits of the disputes, findings recorded in the first or second report. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset it may be stated that even though initially, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution will not be tenable because the very purpose of the making provisions for settlement by the Settlement Commission was to finally settle all the disputes in respect of income, income-tax penalties, etc. and once, the Settlement Commission has finally settled it and settlement has been acted upon by the respondents having paid income-tax and penalty amounts, this Court should not interfere. The learned counsel for the Revenue, however, contended that there is no other efficacious remedy available to the Revenue, when it is not satisfied with the final order of Settlement Commissioner. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned counsel for the respondents did not press the point of tenability of the writ petitions, therefore, we do not enter into that question at any length.
On perusal of the record, particularly different reports submitted by the CIT to the Settlement Commission and the final order passed by the Settlement Commission, it is no more in dispute that after the search of the premises of the Ajmera Group as well as their accountant Vora on two occasions, application for settlement under s. 245C was made on 30th Sept., 1993 wherein additional income of Rs. 1.94 crore was disclosed with confidential Annexure. After receipt of that application, under s. 245D(1), report of the CIT was called and as per that report additional income should have been Rs. 223.56 crore. In that report, the CIT had contended that the assessee had not made true and full disclosures of his income as required under s. 245C and on that ground, application was liable to be rejected. However, the Settlement Commission passed the order on 17th Nov., 1994 accepting the application of their assessee for consideration and accordingly, further report of CIT, was called and as per the report dt. 30th Aug., 1995 corrected by additional report and reconciliation note dt. 20th Oct., 1997, undisclosed income was shown to be Rs. 187.2 crore. The learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that after the initial report under s. 245D (1) was submitted by the CIT, matter was heard on 12th Sept., 1994. The order admitting application was passed on 17th Nov., 1994. After the date of last hearing and before the admission order, on 19th Sept., 1994, a revised confidential Annexure declaring additional income of Rs. 11.41 crore was submitted. It is contended that the confidential Annexure dt. 19th Sept., 1994 was never made available to the CIT, and he could not go through information provided by the assessee in the said disclosures and he also could not submit his report effectively. It is contended that this was in violation of s. 245D and the rules made thereunder.
9. Sec. 245C(1) provides that assessee may make an application in such a format and in such a manner as has been prescribed and containing full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the AO, manner in which such income has been derived, additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as has been prescribed to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled. Sec. 245D(1), as it stood before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 provided that on receipt of the application under s. 245C, the Settlement Commission shall call for the report from the CIT and on the basis of material contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complicity of the investigation involved therein may pass an order either rejecting or allowing the application. If the application is not rejected and is allowed to be proceeded with, the Settlement Commission may call for the relevant records from the CIT and after examination of such records, if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the CIT to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish the report on the matters covered by the applications or any other matter relating to the case. Rule 5 of the Settlement Commission Procedure Rules provides that the settlement application shall be presented in the Form No. 34B, which provides that along with the application there should be confidential information in the Annexure. Rule 6 provides that on receipt of the settlement application, copy of such application, excluding Annexure, shall be forwarded by the Commission to the CIT with the direction to furnish report. Rule 9 provides that where an order is passed by the Commission under s. 245D(1) allowing the settlement application to be proceeded with, copy of the Annexure to the said application together with a copy of each of the statements and other documents accompanying such Annexures shall be forwarded to the CIT along with the copy of the said order with the direction that the CIT shall furnish a further report, which may be done after making necessary inquiry or investigation. In the present case, application under s. 245C was made disclosing additional income of Rs. 1.94 crore. On that basis CIT’s report was called under s. 245D(1) and on that basis, matter was heard and it was admitted. Before the order of admission was passed on 17th Nov., 1994, the assessee revised their earlier application with confidential Annexure disclosing additional income of Rs. 11.41 crore. In fact, this was revision of original application and, therefore, this revised application should have been sent to the CIT for its report under s. 245D(1) but this was not done and admission order was passed on 17th Nov., 1994. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Revenue that the revised application and the confidential Annexures dt. 19th Sept., 1994 were never made available to the CIT and this was violation of rr. 6 and 9 and thus, Revenue did not get sufficient opportunity of hearing in proceeding. There appears substance in this contention. In our opinion, non- furnishing of that application and confidential Annexures to the CIT amounted to violation of r. 9 and on this count, it can be held that Revenue did not get sufficient opportunity to contest the application.
The learned counsel for the assessee harped upon the statement made before the Supreme Court that in the second report submitted by the CIT was admitted on 20th Oct., 1997, undisclosed income was estimated at Rs. 42.5 crore and the Settlement Commission also noted approximately the same income. However, the learned counsel for the Revenue, on the basis of record, pointed out that the second report under s. 245D(4) r/w r. 9 was submitted on 30th Aug., 1995. As an objection was taken on behalf of the assessee about correctness or duplication of certain entries after removal of the errors, a note about reconciliation was submitted on 20th Oct., 1997 pertaining the second report submitted on 30th Aug., 1995. As per this rectified report, CIT had assessed the undisclosed income of Rs. 187.20 crore. This included Annexs. (A) and (B), which showed undisclosed income of Rs. 42,56,78,455 on account of on-money alone. Annex. (C) reveals amount of Rs. 45,27,52,985 showing investment in cash, properties, drafts and others. Annex. (D) revealed details of cash receipts and its total was Rs. 54,71,31,828. Annex. (L) gave details of various cash payments by the respondents. This amount was assessed at Rs. 39,20,41,517. On perusal of the record, we find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that what was pointed out before the Supreme Court was one part of the report and that part was in respect of on-money only while other incomes, investments, receipts or payments were not covered in that part of the statement.
On perusal of the final order passed by the Settlement Commission, it appears that initially the respondents/assessee had claimed that 90 per cent of the on-money was expenditure on different projects but for that expenditure, there was no documentary evidence. Para 14.4 of the order reveals that according to the assessee unaccounted payments were made not only for the construction purpose but also to some buyers, architects, etc. to whom payments have also been made from regular account. Not only this, payment of Rs. 64 lakh to Ajmera Steel Stripes and payment of Rs. 4.34 lakh to Gujarat Printing Press, who are the sister concerns of the respondent, were also claimed. If the respondents had purchased the steel from Ajmera Steel Stripes worth Rs. 64 lakh for the purpose of construction of the projects, there were no reason to make payment without any receipts or documents. Order reveals that payment of Rs. 4.34 lakh to Gujarat Printing Press was the extra money paid to the employees of that concern for the work done for the applicants/respondents. It is impossible to believe that the respondents got the works done from certain employees of sister concern and for that purpose, payment was made without necessary receipts, vouchers or acknowledgments. Para 15.2 of the order of the Settlement Commission shows a summary of trial balances as on 17th Nov., 1992. As per that summary, amount of Rs. 734.02 lakh was shown as allowable expenses and amount of Rs. 36.64 lakh was shown as expenses not allowable. It is difficult to understand how the amount of Rs. 734.02 lakh could be treated as allowable expenses. It appears that consideration amount to the extent of 40 per cent to 60 per cent was received as on-money in cash while remaining amount was received by cheque or by receipts apparantly to evade income tax on that part of income. But it is difficult to understand why the expenses were also made without any record. Manner in which expenses have been shown creates serious doubt about the expenditure of Rs. 734.02 lakh. Besides this, the said summary of trial balances reveals loans treated as unexplained to the extent of Rs. 40.85 lakh. Thus, the total of the expenses and the loans which could not be properly allowed comes to Rs. 911.51 lakh. Para 17 of the order passed by the Settlement Commission gives a statement of receipts and expenses from 1st April, 1981 to 17th Nov., 1992. In this statement, amount of Rs. 488.98 lakh was shown as surplus money and it was claimed that the respondent was in the business of construction since 1960s and therefore, an amount of Rs. 488 lakh could be easily available on 1st April, 1981.
This explanation was not accepted even by the Settlement Commission because during the search taken in 1989 and 1992, no such cash balance was found. In para 19, the Commission noted that from 20th July, 1990 to 17th
Nov., 1992, personal expenditure was shown to be Rs. 823.91 lakh. However, personal expenditure during the period from 1981 to 20th July, 1990 was only Rs. 14 lakh and, therefore, personal expenditure of Rs. 823.91 lakh within a span of 2 and half years could not be believed even by the Settlement Commission. In view of that discrepancy in the personal expenditure, respondents made a composite offer of further income of Rs. 7 crore (1 crore in the asst. yr. 199293 and Rs. 6 crore for the asst. yr. 1993-94) in the spirit of compromise and co-operation at the time of final hearing. That additional offer of Rs. 7 crore would only take care of the amount of Rs. 823.91 lakh on account of excessive personal expenditure during July, 1992 to November, 1992. However, on perusal of the order of the Settlement Commission, it appears that the amount of Rs. 911.51 lakh on account of unexplained expenses and loan and the surplus amount of Rs. 488.98 lakh were not taken care of while assessing the total undisclosed income of the respondents in the final order of the Settlement Commission. Thus, the total amount of Rs. 14.49 crore appears to have been left out while assessing the undisclosed income of the respondents. We make it clear that we have not come to any conclusion about this amount of Rs. 14.49 crore but it needs consideration and better explanation.
13. Taking into consideration the piecemeal disclosures and the additional offers made by the respondents, one can easily come to conclusion that the respondents had not made full and true disclosure of the undisclosed income as required under s. 245C(1) and the huge income was concealed by them. Sec. 271(1)(c) provides that if the AO is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct such person to pay penalty which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times amount of the tax sought to be evaded by the reason of the concealment of the income. In the present case, huge amount of income was concealed by the respondents. Even though amount of about Rs. 14 crore, as pointed out above, was not taken into consideration and several other investments were not considered by the Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission came to conclusion that leviable penalty would be Rs. 562.87 lakh. Possibly this was the amount equal to the amount of tax which was sought to be evaded by not disclosing the income. If further amount of Rs. 14 crore or any other amount would be added in the income-tax amount would substantially increase. As per the provisions of s. 271(1)(c), penalty could be equal to the tax amount or three times of the same. It is true that under s. 245H, Settlement Commission has a power to grant immunity from the prosecution and penalty if it is satisfied that the concerned person had made full and true disclosure of his income and the manner in which such income was derived. However, in the present case, it appears that the respondents had not made true and full disclosure. It is contended by the respondents that the revised application with Annexure was submitted after availability of the documents,which were earlier seized by the IT authorities. However, on perusal of the application dt. 19th Sept., 1994, there is nothing to show that full and true disclosure could not be made earlier for want of necessary documents. Further, the additional disclosure was only about on-money. Respondents must have been aware about the receipts of the on-money, even when original application was made under s. 245C. The Settlement Commission imposed, in its own words, token penalty of Rs. 50 lakh as against the minimum penalty leviable of Rs. 562.87 lakh on account of co-operation given by him. The Settlement Commission observed in para 25 thus : “25……………… the applicant has extended the utmost co-operation in the proceedings. But for his help in analysing and explaining the various entries in the seized records in different ways, it would have been impossible to arrive at a correct conclusion about the seized records….”
This was less than 10 per cent of the minimum leviable penalty. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that this part of the order shows perversity in the order of the Settlement Commission and that there could not be any justification to reduce the penalty so drastically as to make it just token or nominal penalty. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we are also unable to find any logic or rational in waiver of penalty to such an extent particularly in view of the fact that the respondents had not made true and full disclosure at any stage. Even though power under s. 245H is given to the Settlement Commission to reduce the penalty, the power has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that in view of the facts and circumstances, it must have been held by the Settlement Commission that assessee had failed to make true and full disclosure of its income while making the application under s. 245C and on that count itself, application made by the respondents for settlement should have been rejected. He tried to find support from the judgment of this Court in Writ Petn. No.1427 of 2007 Haji N. Abdulla vs. ITSC & Ors. decided on 8th October, 2007 [repoted at (2008) 214 CTR (Bom) 471—Ed.] wherein this Court had upheld the order passed by the Settlement Commission rejecting second application, after rejection of first, on the ground that he had not made true and full disclosure of his income in the first application. In the present case, though we find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the respondents had not made true and full disclosure of the income at the first instance while making application under s. 245C and on that ground, application could have been rejected by the Settlement Commission, we find difficulties in rejection of the application at this stage. The Settlement Commission admitted the application for further proceedings and settlement by its order dt. 17th Nov., 1994. That order was never challenged by the Revenue and that order was acted upon by submission of a report under r. 9 by the CIT. That report was again rectified in 1997. The admission of the application by the Settlement Commission and the further proceedings, resulting in the final order have changed the circumstances. This has its own consequences. For instance on the basis of the final order , respondent has made payment of inocme-tax, interest thereon and the penalty as per the installments fixed by the Settlement Commission. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that amount of almost Rs. 9 crore has been already paid. According to him, not only the income-tax on the additional income for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 to 1993-94 has been paid but also the tax has been paid on the on-money, which was treated as advance in respect of certain uncompleted projects but which have been completed after 1993-94.
Besides this, more serious consequence is about disclosure of certain confidential information. As noted earlier, as per r. 6 of the Settlement Commission Procedure Rules, on receipt of the settlement application, a copy of the application excluding the Annexure shall be forwarded by the Commission to the CIT with the direction to furnish a report under s. 245D(1). After receipt of the report from the CIT and after hearing the parties, the Settlement Commission may either reject the application or admit the same for further proceedings by passing an order under s. 245D(1). If the application is allowed to be proceeded with, under r. 9 a copy of the Annexure to the said application together with a copy of each of the settlements and other documents accompanying such Annexure shall be forwarded to the CIT with the direction to the CIT to furnish a further report. Annexure includes confidential document and information about additional income and the manner in which it was. That information is not available to the IT authorities till the application under s. 245C is not allowed to be proceeded with. Therefore, if the application is rejected after receiving the first report from the CIT, he could not have access to the confidential information and documents submitted in the Annexure. However, as soon as Settlement Commission passed the order dt. 17th Nov., 1994 allowing the application to be proceeded with, Annexure was forwarded to the CIT as per r. 9 and thus, the confidential information became available to the CIT. When the second disclosure was made on 11th Sept., 1994, it was also accompanied by the Annexure. However, according to the Revenue, the Annexure with the second application was not made available to the CIT. However, the fact remains that all these documents including confidential information supplied in 1993 as well as in 1994 is now available to the Revenue as that information has become public because of the reference of the same in the writ petitions before this Court. If the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 17th Nov., 1994 allowing the application to be proceeded with is set aside, all the confidential information, being available with the CIT may be utilised for taking action as per law. That information was submitted by the respondents because of assurance under the rules and the provisions of the Act that the information would not be used by the IT authorities for taking any action against him and would be used only for the purpose of the settlement of the disputes by the Settlement Commission. If now that application is rejected, it would cause serious prejudice to the respondents. In our considered opinion, because of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on 17th Nov., 1994 allowing the application to be proceeded with and that order remaining unchallenged by the Revenue, parties have participated in the settlement proceedings and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to set aside the order dt. 17th Nov., 1994 at this stage.
16. In view of the facts and the legal position noted above, even though we find that the respondents had not made full and true disclosure of their income while making applications under s. 245C, it would not be proper to set aside the proceeding. However, at the same time, the Commission appears to have misdirected itself on several important aspects while passing the final order. The Settlement Commission had not supplied the Annexure dt. 19th Sept., 1994 declaring additional income of Rs. 11.41 crore and thus, due opportunity was not given to the Revenue to plakhe its stand properly. Huge amount of unexplained expenses, unexplained loans and unexplained surplus, total of which is more than Rs. 14 crore, was not taken into consideration while passing the final order. Thirdly, the Settlement Commission has imposed token penalty of Rs. 50 lakh while in its own assessment leviable penalty would be Rs. 562.87. In fact the amounts, which were not taken into consideration while assessing the total undisclosed income, are also taken into consideration, the amount of leviable penalty may be much more. Taking into consideration the multiple disclosures and the fact that the respondents had failed to make true and full disclosure initially as well as at the time of second disclosure, we do not find any justifiable reasons to reduce or waive the amount of penalty so drastically. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of Writ Petn. No. 2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions and, therefore, it will be necessary that the final orders passed in all these proceedings should be set aside.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders dt. 29th Jan., 1999 passed by the Settlement Commission are hereby set aside and all the proceedings are hereby remanded back to the Settlement Commission for hearing afresh after giving due opportunity to the Revenue in the light of the observations made above. Parties shall appear before the Settlement Commission at Mumbai on 3rd Aug., 2009 and the Settlement Commission shall dispose off the proceedings within six months thereafter. Rule made absolute accordingly.
[Citation : 326 ITR 626]
