Supreme Court Of India
Nilesh Hemani vs. CIT & Ors.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Sections 158B
Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2001
16th April, 2001
Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 16287 of 2000 from the judgment and order dt. 16th Dec., 1999, of the Calcutta High Court in C.A. No. 1559 of 1999.
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
Leave is granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. In our view this appeal may be disposed of in terms of our order dt. 16th Oct., 2000 [reported as Nilesh Hemani vs. CIT (2002) 175 CTR (SC) 602] and we accordingly pass the following order in appeal. We are not inclined to stay the impugned notice under s. 158BC of the IT Act issued by Dy. CIT, Central Circle 39, Mumbai on 28th Jan., 1998. It will be open to the petitioner to take such pleas along with the return as are open to him in law. The assessing authority shall consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in accordance with law uninfluenced by anything stated by the learned Single Judge in his order dt. 26th Nov., 1998, in WP No. 878 of 1998 [reported as Nilesh Hemani vs. CIT & Ors. (1999) 155 CTR (Cal) 283 : (1999) 239 ITR 517 (Cal)] and the Division Bench in the order under challenge dt. 16th Dec., 1999.
4. Mr. Verma, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, contends that a petition has been filed by the appellant before the Settlement Commission and it may also be clarified that the observations made by the High Court will not bind the Settlement Commission. It is needless to mention that the subject-matter of the writ petition was the notice issued under s. 158BC of the IT Act and not the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission was not a party to the writ petition, therefore, the question of Settlement, Commission being bound by the observations of the High Court does not arise. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
[Citation : 255 ITR 267]