Nilesh Hemani vs Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Leave is granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In our view this appeal may be disposed of in terms of our order dated October 16, 2000, and we accordingly pass the following order in appeal.

We are not inclined to stay the impugned notice u/s 158BC of the income tax Act, 1961, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle-39, Mumbai, on January 28, 1998. It will be open to the petitioner to take such pleas along with the return as are open to him in law. The assessing authority shall consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in accordance with law uninfluenced by anything stated by the learned single judge in his order dated November 26, 1998, in W. P. No. 878 of 1999 and the Division Bench in the order under challenge dated December 16, 1999.

Mr. Verma learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, contends that a petition has been filed by the appellant before the Settlement Commission and it may also be clarified that the observations made by the High Court will not bind the Settlement Commission. It is needless to mention that the subject-matter of the writ petition was the notice issued u/s 158BC of the income tax Act and not the proceedings before the Settlement Commission and the Settlement Commission was not a party to the writ petition, therefore, the question of the Settlement Commission being bound by the observations of the High Court does not arise.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.