DESOUZA MOTORS, Vs. INCOME-TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. In all the above three petitions, as the identical question of law is involved, we are disposing of all the three above petitions by this common order.

(2.) AS far as Writ Petition No. 6713 of 2000 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner's case therein was pending before the Settlement Commission, however, during the pendency, the petitioner also approached the designated authority, under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and under the said scheme, the designated authority finally determined the income of the petitioner for the assessment years 1988 -89, 1989 -90, 1992 -93 and 1993 -94. With regard to the same assessment years even the Settlement Commission determined the income with regard to the aforesaid assessment years and the following chart will be clear with regard to the same :

(3.) IN all the three petitions, the Settlement Commission had construed the provisions of Section 245D to mean that as the application was pending before the said Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission was not empowered to allow the petitioner to withdraw the same and the Settlement Commission was also entitled to proceed with the same and decide and accordingly had decided the tax liability.