- (1.) HEARD Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Mahajan, Advocate for respondent for respondent No. 3 and Sri Suyash Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 1662 of 2008.
(2.) ALL these writ petitions have come up against the orders dated 31.03.2008 passed by Settlement Commission. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petition No. 1663 of 2008 is taken as the leading case. Since facts in all the matters are similar and orders impugned in all these petitions are almost verbatim, therefore, counsel for the parties have also addressed the Court referring to pleadings and documents in Writ Petition No. 1663 of 2008.
(3.) THE facts, in brief, are that during search operations at different premises of respondent No. 3, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. Pursuant thereto the assessment was made under Section 158 -BC(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1961"). The assessee -respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 245 -C of Act, 1961, which came to be referred to respondent No. 2. The proceedings before Settlement Commission were pending, whereupon the assessee came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 506 of 2008 and connected matters, wherein an order was passed on 18.03.2008 directing Settlement Commission to decide settlement application filed by assessee by 31st March, 2008. Pursuant thereto the impugned orders have been passed by Commission. It would be interesting to notice the observations made by Commission in para 4 and 5 of the order read as under: "4. This would involve more than 1500 assessments. The Settlement Commission deals only with the assessments which involve complexity of investigation and the application is intended to provide quietus to litigation. For example, in one group of cases where 23 applications are involved, the paper book which has been filed before the Settlement Commission runs into thirty thousand pages. It goes without saying that sufficient and proper opportunity is required to be given both to the applicant and the Commissioner of Income Tax Department for arriving at a proper settlement. 5. At this juncture, it is not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper settlement. Even giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and the department, as laid down in Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not practicable. However, to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, we hereby pass an order u/s. 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961." ;