Orissa High Court
Charanjit Singh Grewal vs Settlement Commission It And Wt & on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20387 of 2017
Charanjit Singh Grewal .... Petitioner
Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Settlement Commission IT and WT &
another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel (IT)
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 22.11.2021
18. 1. The challenge in the writ petition inter alia is to an order dated 31st
July, 2018 of the Settlement Commission. One of the grounds of
challenge is that the report that was to be mandatorily submitted under
Rule-9 of the IT Rule Settlement (Commission) Procedure Rule, 1997
was submitted at a belated stage on 10th February, 2017 and that the
Petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing in
relation to the 31 issues raised in the said report. Another ground
raised in paragraph 28 of the writ petition is that after pronouncement
of the order of the Settlement Commission, the Supreme Court of
India pronounced a judgment on 2nd August, 2017 in W.P. No.114 of
2014 (Common Cause v. Union of India) as a result of which the
Petitioner paid substantial compensation amounts for the coal mines
at Sainindupur and for Raikela Mines. According to the Petitioner, the
said payments are to be treated as expenses in the hands of the
Petitioner and are allowable as such for the relevant Assessment
Years, i.e. 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
2. A development that has taken place during the pendency of the
present petition is that by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with
retrospective effect from 1st February, 2021 the Income Tax
Settlement Commission stands abolished. In terms of 245 AA (1) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') an Interim Board for Settlement has
to be constituted by the Central Government for the settlement of
'pending applications'. The expression "pending application" has
been defined in Section 245 A (eb), and means an application in
respect of which no order under Section 245 D (4) on or before 31st
January, 2021.
3. In the present case, the Settlement Commission has already
disposed of the Petitioner's application before 31st July, 2018 and
therefore, it cannot be considered to be a pending application. The
question then arises if the Court were to agree with the Petitioner that
the Settlement Commission ought to have considered the effect of
payments made by the Petitioner pursuant to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India
(supra) and in the light of the stand taken by the Revenue in the
additional written note of submission handed over to the Court today
that such payment is not an allowable expense in the hands of the
Assessee, can the matter be remanded to the aforementioned Interim
Board of Settlement and if not, what are the remedies available to the
Petitioner?
4. Mr. Chimanka, learned counsel for the Revenue Department states
that he will seek instructions on the above aspects and prays for an
adjournment.
5. Copies of any of the pleadings filed by the Petitioner in addition to
the main petition and the rejoinder be served on Mr. Chimanka within
one week. It will be open to the Petitioner to file before the next date
its written note of submissions in response to the written note of
submission filed by the learned counsel for the Revenue today.
6. The interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.
7. List on 21st February, 2022.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
R.K. Singh/Jagabandhu
