9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January, 2021, was held to be beyond the scope of powers of the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act. The Court observed that there was no provision in the Act empowering the CBDT to impose such eligibility conditions in regard to extending the cut-off date to make an application under Section 245C of the Act. Hence, such condition in the impugned notification which offered the statutory mandate was held to be invalid and bad in law. It was held that the assessee in such case, therefore, had become eligible to make an application The impugned order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement rejecting the Petitioner s application on the ground that the conditions as incorporated in Para 4 of the CBDT s Order dated 28th September, 2021 issued under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act would become applicable, is required to be held illegal and will be required to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner certainly was eligible for its Settlement Application to be considered by the Interim Board of Settlement for appropriate orders to be passed on it in accordance with law. - G. S. KULKARNI SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w. Ms. Insha Hanif S. For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 91 of 2021. 5. It is contended that the CBDT issued a Press Release dated 7th September, 2021, in view of the orders passed by the High Courts informing the public at large that a settlement application could be filed even after 1st February, 2021, being the date when the Finance Bill was introduced. It was also informed that the settlement application could be filed by taxpayers till 30th September, 2021. 6. On such backdrop on 22nd September, 2021, the Petitioner re-filed the Settlement Application pursuant to such press release and paid additional interest for the period of March 2021 to September 2021. 7. On 28th September, 2021, the CBDT however issued another Order under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, which was also subject matter of the press release, in which two additional conditions were incorporated in Para 4, in the context of Section 245C (5), to the effect that applications could be filed by the assesses, who were eligible, to make an application as on 31st January, 2021 and who had assessment proceedings pending on the date of filing of the settlement application. 8. The Petitioner contends that during the period August 2022 to September 2023, settlement proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years); and (ii) where the relevant assessment proceedings of the assessee are pending as on the date of filing the application for settlement. 12. Mr. Naniwadekar would submit that in view of the decision of this Court in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra), the challenge as raised by the Petitioner to the CBDT Order dated 28th September, 2021 would stand concluded. He would also submit that the effect of such pronouncement of this Court is to the effect that the Petitioner s application which was refiled by the Petitioner on 27th September, 2021 would be valid, to be so considered by the Respondent. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the Petitioner s application dated 25th March, 2021 along with application dated 27th September, 2021 which are stated to be clubbed, were thus eligible for consideration. For such reasons, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the IBS, to the extent it rejects the Petitioner s application, would be required to be held to be bad in law and illegal and contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra). Mr. Naniwadekar would hence submit that the Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 that the assessee should be eligible to file an application for settlement on 21st January, 2021, was held to be beyond the scope of powers of the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act. The Court observed that there was no provision in the Act empowering the CBDT to impose such eligibility conditions in regard to extending the cut-off date to make an application under Section 245C of the Act. Hence, such condition in the impugned notification which offered the statutory mandate was held to be invalid and bad in law. It was held that the assessee in such case, therefore, had become eligible to make an application. The relevant observations of the Court are required to be noted, which read thus :- 24. As regards the notification dated 28th September 2021 issued by the CBDT under Section 192 (2) (b) of the Act, the date for making application has been extended by the said notification to 30th September 2021, which is clearly within the scope of the powers of the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act. Section 119 of the Act provides that the Board may from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other Income Tax Authorities as it may be deemed fit for proper administ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 245D (9) and 245M (2) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 make it clear that all pending applications shall be settled by the Interim Board. 27. The eligibility of petitioner was dependent upon the notice being issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 153A of the Act. Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to take benefit of his own delay in issuing the notice to the assessee so as to take away the right of petitioner to file an application under Section 245C. The search in petitioner s case took place on 25th July 2019 and ended on 29th August 2019. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 delayed issuing the notice under Section 153A of the Act for a period of almost 18 months. Respondent No. 1 issued notice under Section 153A only on 5th February 2021. Hence, as respondent No. 1 has delayed issuing the notice under Section 153A of the Act which entitled petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission, such right of petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission cannot be taken away by respondents by issuing a circular under Section 119 of the Act. If the notice under Section 153A of the Act would have been issued on or before 31st of January 2021, petitioner would have been eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
