On writ petitions by the Department challenging the order passed by the Settlement Commission to the extent that it granted the assessees immunity from prosecution and penalty, the court in CIT v. Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 483 ITR 619 (Delhi)) observed that there was no foundation for the finding of the Settlement Commission that there was full and fair disclosure, and remanded the matter to the Settlement Commission for reconsideration whether or not immunity from penalty and prosecution ought to be granted. On review petitions by the assessees contending that at both stages (at the stage of applications under section 245C and section 245H), there had been no non-co-operation by the assessees, that the assessees’ applications had been allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission on the finding that the assessees fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under section 245C(1) of the Act, read with the background recorded in the order passed by the Settlement Commission, and that that was sufficient to grant immunity:<\/p>\n
Held, that no reason had been given by the Settlement Commission either in its initial order December 28, 2011 or in its final order dated June 27, 2013 as to why the Commission had recorded its satisfaction in respect of true and full disclosure and as to why the assessees made out a case for grant of immunity from prosecution and penalty. There was no error apparent on the face of the record or any other grounds that merited consideration for reviewing CIT v. Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 483 ITR 619 (Delhi)(HC). The matter was remanded to the Income-tax Settlement Commission in terms of CIT v. Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 483 ITR 619 (Delhi)(HC) (Dt. 13-12-2024)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Matter remanded to Settlement Commission-High Court-Review Power limited Review petition not entertainable unless there is an error apparent on face of record [S. 245H, Art. 226, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, s. 114, Sch. 1, O. 47, r. 1.] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fHL","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60373"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60374,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60373\/revisions\/60374"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}