COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BHASKAR PICTURE PALACE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The batch of cases concerns Section 245-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood prior to 1991 and thereafter, prior to the amendment in 1991 Sections 245- d (1) and (1-A) read thus:

(2.) The Respondents in each of these appeals had filed applications under Section 245-C before the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission had, under the provisions of Section 245-D, called for a report from the Commissioner and the Commissioner had objected to the applications being proceeded with. The objections of the Commissioner were upheld and the applications were not proceeded with. After the amendment in 1991 of Section 245-D, whereby Sub-section (1-A) was omitted altogether, the Respondent made fresh applications to the Settlement Commission in regard to the same years for which they had applied earlier and the settlement Commission entertained these applications. Its Full Bench in birumal Gaurishankar Jain and Co. v. Income Tax Settlement Commission [ (1992) 195 ITR 792 (ITSC) ] found that, having regard to the omission of Subsection (1-A) as aforestated, the Settlement commissioner was entitled to do so. The Union of India is in appeal against the entertainment of the applications of the Respondents as aforestated.

(3.) On a previous occasion, time was sought by the Union of India to segregate those cases in which the applications had been rejected only on the ground of the Commissioner's objection under the said Sub-section (1-A) from those where the settlement Commission had rejected the applications for the reasons that are stated in Subsection (1).