Court allows appeal, emphasizes natural justice principles, remands matter for fresh consideration.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Settlement Commission and remanding the matter to the Interim Board for fresh consideration. The court emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice, highlighted procedural violations, and underscored the importance of providing a fair opportunity for rebuttal. The Interim Board was deemed to have jurisdiction to entertain the application post-abolition of the Settlement Commission. The decision directed the Interim Board to dispose of the application within six weeks, ensuring a fair hearing and proper consideration of all materials.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Settlement Commission's order rejecting the appellant's application.
2. Alleged bias of the Vice Chairman of the Settlement Commission.
3. Procedural violations and principles of natural justice.
4. Claim under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act.
5. Jurisdiction of the Interim Board to entertain the application post-abolition of the Settlement Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Settlement Commission's Order:
The appellant challenged the order dated 30.09.2016 by the Settlement Commission, which rejected their application on the grounds of non-disclosure of full and true income. The court observed that the Settlement Commission had relied on a detailed report filed by the assessing officer on 29.09.2016 without providing the appellant an opportunity to respond. This was viewed as a violation of natural justice. Additionally, the court noted procedural irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings by the Settlement Commission.

2. Alleged Bias of the Vice Chairman:
The appellant contended that the Vice Chairman of the Settlement Commission, who was previously the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) during the investigation against the appellant, should have recused himself to avoid conflict of interest. The court referred to the legal maxim "nemo judex in sua causa debet esse" (no one should be a judge in his own cause) and cited relevant case laws to highlight the necessity of impartiality. The court found that the Vice Chairman's involvement raised a reasonable likelihood of bias, thus vitiating the proceedings.

3. Procedural Violations and Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, including providing adequate opportunity to the appellant to respond to reports and findings. The Settlement Commission's failure to provide such an opportunity and the procedural deviations were deemed to have violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing. The court underscored that the Settlement Commission must consider all materials and provide a fair opportunity for rebuttal before making a decision.

4. Claim under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant's claim under Section 80IB was a significant point of contention. The court noted contradictions in the Settlement Commission's findings regarding the new unit and the claim under Section 80IB. The appellant had provided evidence supporting their claim, but the Settlement Commission dismissed it without proper consideration. The court found this approach to be unfair and unsupported by the evidence presented.

5. Jurisdiction of the Interim Board:
With the abolition of the Settlement Commission and the establishment of the Interim Board, the court examined whether the Interim Board could entertain the appellant's application. The court referred to the press release and subsequent order under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, which allowed applications to be filed until 30.09.2021. The court concluded that the Interim Board has the jurisdiction to entertain the application upon remand, treating it as a pending application.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Settlement Commission and the learned Judge. The matter was remanded to the Interim Board for fresh consideration, directing it to dispose of the application within six weeks, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice and proper consideration of all materials.

---