Settlement Commission abatement revives first appellate jurisdiction and leaves no surviving order for a second appeal.

Where an assessee's pending first appeal is taken to the Settlement Commission and the settlement proceedings later abate, section 245HA(2) requires the matter to be disposed of by the authority before which it was pending when the settlement application was made, as if no application had been filed. The earlier appellate jurisdiction therefore revives before the first appellate authority, not before the Tribunal. A technical or statistical disposal by the first appellate authority does not leave a surviving appealable order for second appeal. On that basis, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal, and any connected condonation petition cannot be examined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could entertain the assessee's second appeals and the connected condonation petition when the first appellate proceedings had become infructuous on account of proceedings before the Settlement Commission and subsequent abatement.

Analysis: The assessee had moved the Settlement Commission while the appeals were pending before the first appellate authority. On abatement of the settlement proceedings, section 245HA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required the pending case to be disposed of by the authority before whom it was pending at the time of settlement application as if no such application had been made. The earlier appellate jurisdiction therefore revived before the first appellate authority, not before the Tribunal. The order of the first appellate authority was only a technical or statistical disposal, and no appealable order survived for second appeal. Since the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the delay petition also could not be examined.

Conclusion: The second appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal, and the condonation petition was non est.

---