R B SHREERAM DURGA PRASAD AND FATEHCHAND NURSING DAS Vs. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IT AND WT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Settlement Commission dated 7th Aug. 1987. The fact that an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution lies against the order of the Settlement Commission is now beyond pale of any controversy in view of the decision of this Court in Commr. of Income-tax (Central), Calcutta v. B. N. Bhattachargee, (1979) 118 ITR 461: (AIR 1979 SC 1725). The appellant had applied to the Settlement Commission for settlement of his assessment for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1975-76 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That application had to be proceeded in accordance with S. 245C of the Act which is as follows:

(2.) The application made by the appellant was a composite one for settlement of his assessments for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1975-76. The purpose for the introduction of the Settlement Commission has been explained by this Court in the aforesaid decision. This Court observed that these are contained in Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said Chapter was enacted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 whose beneficiaries were ordinarily those whose tax liability was astronomical and criminal culpability perilous. As has been observed that this Chapter was introduced with the debatable policy, fraught with dubious potentialities in the context of Third World conditions of political peculium and bureaurcratic abetment, that composition and collection of public revenue from tycoons is better than prosecution of their tax-related crime and litigation for total revenue recovery. The Wanchoo Committee appointed by the Government of India had recommended this step.

(3.) It appears that on 12th Aug. 1977 the Commissioner of Income-tax objected to the proposal of the appellant under S. 245D(1) of the Act. The Commissioner objected to the Settlement for the years 1948-49 to 1959-60, but agreed to the settlement for later years. The Commissioner, it appears, accordingly made an order on 24th Aug. 1977 rejecting the application for settlement for the years 1948-49 to 1959-60. The appellant on 20th Sept. 1977 applied to the Commission to recall its earlier order dated 24th Aug. 1977 since the same had been made without furnishing any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Section 245D(1) provides as follows: