S. SRINIVASAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In case the settlement becomes void under the said sub -section(6), the matter shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage from which the application was allowed and the Income Tax authority concerned, may, notwithstanding anything contained in any provisions of the Act, complete such proceedings at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the settlement became void. It is in view of this when fraud or misrepresentation of facts are found, then in that case only the assessing officer shall have to proceed and will have to complete the assessment within the period as indicated therein. Section 245 -E also authorizes the Settlement Commission to reopen any proceedings connected with the case which have been completed under the Act by any Income Tax authority prior to making an application under section 245 -C of the Act. However, the same is required to be opened in concurrence of the assessed in passing the order thereon as it thinks fit. Section 245 -I is specifically incorporated in the Chapter to make the order of settlement under sub -section (4) of Section 245D of the Act to be conclusive in regard to the matters stated therein. It further states that no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, be reopened in any proceeding under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force. 15. In view of the provisions contained in sub -section (6) of Section 245D, 245E and 245 -I, it was submitted that the Settlement Commission after passing the settlement order becomes functus officio, as it has no power to reopen the same in any proceedings under the Act, namely proceeding under Section 154 of the Act. Section 245I specifically provides that it can be reopened only in the manner indicated in this Chapter. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the settlement can be reopened only under sub -section (6) of Section 245D of the Act.

(2.) IN any civilized society rendering justice to its citizens is an elementary function of the State. Particularly, democracy would be on paper if the country does not have an independent, adequate and effective judiciary. It is also an accepted principle that there should be separation of the judiciary from the executive. Unfortunately, attempts are being made to have inroads effecting independence of judiciary by establishment of various tribunals and forums, which are under direct control of the executive. Now, the persons from executive are being posted as members of the Tribunals or as their Chairpersons. The whole purpose envisaged by the Constitution of having an independent separate judiciary is frustrated by taking away functions which are to be discharged by the civil courts and assigning the same to government departments or to Tribunals which are directly under the control of the executive and to make persons working in executive departments as part of the judiciary. It is required to be avoided for giving ample protection to the citizens under the law for saving the foundation of democracy. Let there by no unison (combination) of the executive and the judiciary.