AMRAPALI FINCAP LIMITED Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN / MEMBERS / SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive relief: Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ, direction to the Honble Settlement Commission (respondent) not to pass any final order on merits under Sec. 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without complying with the principles of natural justice and opportunity, specially affording the opportunity of cross-examination of the statements of Shirish C. Shah and others, documents and material and basis of the same relied upon by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in his report under Rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997.

(2.) The petitioner, in each of the petitions, is either a company or an individual belonging to the Amrapali Group. Since the facts and contentions raised in all these petitions are common, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) From the averments made in the petitions, it appears that on 11/11/2014, the petitioners herein had filed individual applications under Sec. 245C(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Settlement Commission in respect of assessment years 2007- 2008 to 2014-2015. The Settlement Commission passed an order dtd. 21/11/2014 admitting the applications in terms of the said order under Sec. 245D(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Settlement Commission passed an order dtd. 9/1/2015 under Sec. 245D(2C) of the Act after considering the objection of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Ahmedabad, as to the full and true disclosure of income and validity of the admission of twelve applicants cases of Amrapali Group. In paragraph 8 of the said order, the Settlement Commission has recorded that the Department has mainly relied upon the survey and search action conducted in the case of Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah and some other cases and the evidences gathered therein; as well as statements of certain persons including Shirish Chandrakant Shah recorded during the course of such action. That the petitioners have strongly contended that none of such evidences and statements have been provided to them by the Department nor have they been granted any opportunity of examination of such documents and cross examination of the persons, whose statements have been recorded and relied upon by the Department. The Settlement Commission held that the principles of natural justice demand that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to verify and examine all such adverse and incriminating materials which the Department proposes to utilize against them.