Condonation of delay and remand upheld where settlement proceedings and jurisdictional objections did not show any apparent error.

The Tribunal's condonation of delay and remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) was examined in the context of pending settlement proceedings and a jurisdictional objection raised in miscellaneous applications. The Court noted that the Tribunal had followed a coordinate bench decision, that the assessee's matters were factually similar to earlier group cases, and that the jurisdictional challenge and objection to the appealability of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order were raised only at the miscellaneous stage. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the merits and had disposed of the appeals as not maintainable because of the settlement proceedings, the remand did not disclose any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal's order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal committed any mistake apparent on record in condoning the delay, entertaining the miscellaneous applications, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) despite the pendency of settlement proceedings and the objection based on jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitions challenged the Tribunal's recall rejection on the footing that the matters were pending before the Settlement Commission and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have proceeded with the appeal or remanded the matter. The Court noted that the Tribunal had relied on a coordinate bench decision only for condoning the delay and that the assessee's cases were factually similar to the earlier group matters. It was also observed that the jurisdictional objection and the contention that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not appealable were raised for the first time in the miscellaneous applications. The Court further accepted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the merits and had disposed of the appeals as not maintainable in view of the settlement proceedings, so remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not disclose any apparent error.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on record was made out, and the Tribunal's order condoning the delay and remanding the matter was upheld.

---