PUKHRAJ BHABHUTMAL SHAH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) After the petitioner's case came to be admitted by the Settlement Commission, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal came up for hearing on 16.1.2001. Since the petitioner's case already stood admitted by the Commission, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 12.1.2001 to the Tribunal pointing out that since the Settlement Commission had already admitted its case, the appeal may be adjourned. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.1.2001, the petitioner withdrew the appeal in the light of the fact that the matter was pending before the Commission after admission of the application.

(3.) Later on, the petitioner also made a submission dated 20.2.2008 to the Commission stating that the tax due under section 245D(1) of the Act was Rs. 3,00,000/- and in view of the fact that the department had seized the cash of Rs. 8,42,500/-, the same stood fully paid in time. Even thereafter, there was no communication to the petitioner either from the Assessing Officer or from the office of the Settlement Commission regarding non-payment or short payment of tax payable under section 245D(2A) of the Act. Eventually, the petitioner received a notice of hearing under section 245D(2D) read with section 245HA(1)(ii) of the Act fixing the hearing on 16.9.2013, which came to be adjourned to 25.11.2013.