2024 (2) TMI 225 - HC - Income Tax

Application for settlement of cases - powers of the Settlement Commission with regard to pending application - pendency of the settlement application before the Interim Board - as stated in Rule 9 report that the application filed by the petitioner is not eligible to be considered as the assessment orders have already been passed during the interregnum period in the month of July 2021 - HELD THAT - As referring to section 245A(da) on Interim Board , section 245C on Application for settlement of cases, section 245F on Powers and procedure of Settlement Commission, section 245H on Power of Settlement Commission to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty and circular dated 28.09.2021 issued by the CBDT the application filed by the petitioner under section 245C of the Act would be an eligible application though filed after 31.01.2021 and the same is required to be considered as pending application for adjudication on merits. The assessment order passed by the respondent No. 3 on 27.07.2021 for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2019-20 could not have been passed as the application filed by the petitioner for settlement is considered to be pending and the Interim Board is required to exercise all the powers of the Settlement Commission with regard to pending application and accordingly, as per provision of section 245F(2) of the Act, the Interim Board is vested with the powers of the Settlement Commission and jurisdiction and Income Tax authority could not have proceeded further with the assessment proceedings in view of the pendency of the settlement application before the Interim Board. The Interim board therefore would have exclusive jurisdiction over the case and the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass any assessment order during the pendency of the application before the Settlement Commission/Interim Board. It appears that the respondent No. 3 has passed assessment orders in July 2021 when there was no clarity with regard to settlement applications filed after 31.01.2021. In view of the clear legal position prevailing even after 01.02.2021, the assessment orders passed by the respondent No. 3 are non-est and would not survive as the same could not have been passed as per provision of section 245F(2) of the Act. The impugned assessment orders are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside and in view of quashing of the setting aside of the assessment order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3, the very basis of rejecting the application by the Interim Board also ceases and accordingly, impugned order passed by the Interim Board is also quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Interim Board to decide the settlement application treating the same as pending application as per the Circular dated 28.09.2021 to be adjudicated on merits and to pass the order under section 245D(4) of the Act, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment orders passed by the Respondent No. 3.
2. Jurisdiction of the Interim Board to adjudicate the settlement application.
3. Application of Circular dated 28.09.2021 issued by the CBDT.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Assessment Orders:
The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the assessment orders passed by the Respondent No. 3 on 27.07.2021 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were passed despite the pendency of a settlement application filed on 30.03.2021. The court held that the assessment orders passed by Respondent No. 3 are non-est and would not survive as they were passed during the pendency of the settlement application before the Interim Board, which had exclusive jurisdiction over the case as per section 245F(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Jurisdiction of the Interim Board:
The petitioner contended that the Interim Board, constituted under section 245AA, has all the powers of the Settlement Commission to adjudicate pending applications after 01.02.2021. The court observed that the Interim Board is vested with the powers of the Settlement Commission and has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income-tax authority under the Act in relation to the case. Therefore, the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax authorities during the pendency of the settlement application were invalid.

3. Application of Circular dated 28.09.2021:
The petitioner argued that the application filed on 30.03.2021 should be considered a valid and pending application as per the CBDT Circular dated 28.09.2021. The circular allowed taxpayers who were eligible to file applications for settlement on 31.01.2021 to file such applications by 30.09.2021. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the application filed by the petitioner is a valid application and should be treated as a pending application for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned assessment orders passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order passed by the Interim Board. The matter was remanded back to the Interim Board to decide the settlement application treating it as a pending application as per the CBDT Circular dated 28.09.2021. The Interim Board is directed to adjudicate the application on merits and pass an order under section 245D(4) of the Act after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the aforesaid extent.