Section 245D(4) HIGH COURT OF PATNA order dated 6.10.2020. If the Settlement Commissioner had all records before him, Revenue had duly made its representation, and the Settlement Commission had thereinafter accepted the settlement only way of reading the impugned sentence is that the matter was straightforward on the face of the record. Since the revenue had duly made its representation, and the Settlement Commission had thereinafter accepted the settlement, therefore, it cannot be reopened. It is also not disputed that the Settlement Commission necessarily was required to pass orders else the proceedings would have abated. Revenue has not pointed any finger of misconduct against any one of the members of the Settlement Commission. CIT & ANR. vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT&WT) & ANR.
289 total views
289 total views COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT&WT) & ANR. HIGH COURT OF PATNA SANJAY KAROL CJ & S. KUMAR ORAL, J. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10663 of 2009 Oct 6, 2020 Section…