Additional Cit Vs. Hcl Technologies Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....come after the cut-off date. the competent authority will decide the matter notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before the cit(a). income tax act, 1961 section 92ca income tax act, 1961 section 144c - indian evidence act, 1872.section 32 (1): [aftab alam & deepak verma, jj] murder - three dying declarations burn injuries - deceased alleged to have been set on fire by her mother-in-law while she was cooking food on a kerosene stove as a result of which she had sustained 90% burn injuries - three dying declarations of deceased recorded - trial court convicted appellant under section 302 of ipc relying on third dying declaration of deceased - in deceased's first dying declaration, she had stated that while cooking food, on primus stove, she pumped air which inflamed the same, her clothes accordingly caught fire and she sustained burn injuries - in second dying declaration that deceased had stated that after cooking meals in the evening she was trying to extinguish the stove, but it got inflamed and her nylon saree caught fire - second dying declaration of deceased also stated that no one had put her to fire and no one should be blamed for it - third dying declaration.....order1. delay condoned.2. heard both sides.3. we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when the high court has remitted the matter to the tpo from whose order an appeal is pending before the commissioner (appeals), it would be in the interest of both sides to resort to alternate dispute resolution mechanism suggested in the budget of 2009 (see section 144c of the income tax act, 1961). it is made clear that the competent authority will not reject the application herein made by the assessee on the ground that the proposal has come after the cut-off date. the learned addl. solicitor general will, accordingly, communicate instructions to the department. the competent authority will decide the matter notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before the commissioner (appeals).special leave petition is disposed of.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Heard both sides.

3. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when the High Court has remitted the matter to the TPO from whose order an appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), it would be in the interest of both sides to resort to Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism suggested in the Budget of 2009 (see Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). It is made clear that the competent authority will not reject the application herein made by the assessee on the ground that the proposal has come after the cut-off date. The learned Addl. Solicitor General will, accordingly, communicate instructions to the department. The competent authority will decide the matter notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Special Leave Petition is disposed of.