( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1609 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION NO.1609 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION NO.1609 OF 2006

Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd

(Earlier Known as Centurion Bank Ltd.) .. Petitioner

V/s

The Income Tax Settlement Commission

& Ors. .. Respondents

Mr.S.E.Dastur with Mr.Rajesh Shah i/by M/s.Rajesh Shah &

Co. for the Petitioner.

Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the Respondents.

CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &&&

J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATE : 14th February, 2007.

DATE : 14th February, 2007.

DATE : 14th February, 2007.

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT :

JUDGMENT : (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

(PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

(PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final

hearing. The Petitioner is a Company engaged in the

business of banking and related financial activities

including leasing. The Petitioner was earlier known as

Centurion Bank Limited. The Petitioner is also the

successor-in-interest of two companies named 20th

Century Capital Corporation Limited and 20th Century

Finance Corporation Limited who have merged with the

Petitioner. As of date the Petitioner which was

formerly known as Centurion Bank Limited is today known

as Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the

order dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Income Tax

Settlement Commission under Section 245D(1) of the

( 2 )

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the said

Act") whereby the Settlement Commission has taken a view

that the settlement applications filed by the Petitioner

in respect of its own assessments and the assessments of

the two merging companies are not fit for admission on

the ground that the case does not involve complexity and

that there was no full and true disclosure by the

Petitioner.

3. We have perused the impugned order dated 27th

December, 2005 passed by the Settlement Commission. The

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

brought to our notice the provisions of Section 245D(1)

of the Act, which reads as under:-

"245D(1).

"245D(1).

"245D(1). On receipt of an application under

Section 245C, the Settlement Commission shall call

for a report from the Commissionr and on the basis

of the materials contained in such report and having

regard to the nature and circumstances of the case

or the complexity of the investigation involved

therein, the Settlement Commission, shall, where it