Issues: Whether the Mumbai Bench had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection arising from an assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer situated at Chennai.

Analysis: Ordinary territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, and not by the location of the assessee or the appellate authority. Since the originating assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked ordinary territorial jurisdiction over both proceedings.

Conclusion: The Mumbai Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction; the parties may pursue their respective proceedings before the appropriate jurisdictional Bench, with all merits issues remaining open.

Issues: Whether an addition based solely on the difference between opening and closing cash balances was sustainable where the opening cash was a brought-forward audited balance and the books remained unrejected.

Analysis: The opening cash balance was carried forward from the preceding financial year and reflected in audited accounts; it was not a fresh credit or receipt in the relevant previous year. No material established that the brought-forward cash did not exist or represented income of the relevant year. A mere increase in closing cash, without examination of individual cash receipts and payments or identification of a specific unexplained receipt, could not support the addition. The books of account were not rejected under Section 145(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and no cash-book entry was found false or unverifiable.

Conclusion: The cash-balance addition of Rs. 37,01,999 was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 3 crore as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where an investment made by the assessee is not recorded in its books and its nature and source remain unexplained. The Rs. 2.75 crore payments were made before the assessee firm came into existence and were confirmed as payments made by the predecessor firm. The assessee subsequently recorded the corresponding liability on transfer of the project; taking over that liability did not establish an investment made by the assessee. Any inadequacy in the predecessor firm's explanation of its cash source required examination in that firm's assessment. The documentary material, including cash-flow details, buyer particulars and bank entries, was not displaced through enquiry; suspicion could not substitute evidence. The remaining Rs. 25 lakh was supported as a bank payment later returned, with no corroborative material proving a separate cash payment. The partner's general admission could not override the dates, books and bank records.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish any unexplained investment by the assessee. The Rs. 3 crore addition under Section 69, together with the consequential levy under Section 115BBE and interest, was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the 2,747-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether the additions for cash deposits and unsecured loan were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the 2,747-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was supported by evidence that the assessee had shifted residence, remained outside India for substantial periods while employed abroad, and did not receive the hearing notices. Applying the liberal principles governing condonation of delay and natural justice, the stated circumstances constituted reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the additions for cash deposits and unsecured loan were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had produced audited accounts, books of account, purchase and sales bills, creditor confirmations, and supporting statements and affidavits regarding the business transactions. The adverse inference was founded on an inspector's report that had not been confronted to the assessee. Such untested material could not wholly negate the business claim. Considering the peculiar facts, an aggregate addition of Rs. 5 lakh above the returned income was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The aggregate impugned additions were restricted to Rs. 5 lakh, and the balance addition of Rs. 18.20 lakh was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed income is required to be recomputed by retaining only the aggregate addition of Rs. 5 lakh over the returned income.

Issues: Whether the assessee's leave-encashment receipt of Rs. 5,90,760 was eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under the enhanced Rs. 25 lakh limit.

Analysis: The enhanced exemption limit prescribed by Notification No. 31/2023, together with its explanatory memorandum stating that no person was adversely affected by its retrospective effect, was applied in accordance with the binding coordinate-bench precedent. In the absence of any change in the factual or legal position, the restriction of the exemption to the earlier limit could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The leave-encashment amount of Rs. 5,90,760 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether exemption under section 54F was available where investment in the new residential asset was partly made from sources other than the capital gains account and the construction was alleged not to have been completed within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 54F is a beneficial provision requiring liberal interpretation. It does not mandate that the cost of the new residential asset must be met exclusively from the sale proceeds of the original capital asset or from withdrawals from the capital gains account. The timely deposit of the sale consideration in the capital gains account satisfied the statutory deposit requirement. The investment records and the municipal tax assessment certificate corroborated construction of the residential house within the three-year period prescribed under section 54F.

Conclusion: The assessee fulfilled the conditions under sections 54F(1) and 54F(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was entitled to exemption of the long-term capital gain. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether additional evidence concerning the prior agreement/allotment and payment through banking channels warranted fresh determination of the stamp-duty-value addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The additional evidence relating to the date on which consideration was fixed and the mode and timing of payments was relevant to the applicability of the provisos to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the agreement date differs from the registration date and consideration is paid through the prescribed non-cash mode on or before the agreement date. As the assessing authority had not examined that material, verification of the documents, payment details, and the appropriate stamp duty value was necessary. No view was expressed on the merits of the addition.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted, and the addition under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was directed to be determined afresh after factual verification and after affording the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether identified commission receipts from the assessee's business could be assessed as unexplained cash credits; (ii) Whether cash introduced into the proprietor's capital/current account constituted unexplained cash credit; (iii) Whether the unreconciled difference between stated personal expenditure and recorded withdrawals was assessable as unexplained expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether identified commission receipts from the assessee's business could be assessed as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: Section 68 applies where the nature and source of a credit remain unexplained or the explanation is unsatisfactory. The receipt had been identified by the Assessing Officer as commission generated from the disclosed business. Its receipt in cash did not alter its character as a business receipt. In the absence of material that it was an independent receipt from an undisclosed source, the gross commission receipts could not be treated as unexplained cash credit; only the income embedded in business receipts may be brought to tax in accordance with law. Treating the same receipt as both commission and unexplained credit would amount to approbation and reprobation.

Conclusion: The addition for commission receipts under Section 68, and consequential application of Section 115BBE, was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash introduced into the proprietor's capital/current account constituted unexplained cash credit.

Analysis: The cash introduction had to be assessed in the context of the cash flow from the disclosed business, including cash commission receipts accepted by the Assessing Officer. A proprietary concern has no legal identity distinct from its proprietor, and transfer of the proprietor's cash into that concern does not by itself establish a separate income. No material showed that the introduced cash exceeded available business cash or arose from an independent undisclosed source.

Conclusion: The addition for cash introduced in the capital/current account under Section 68, and consequential application of Section 115BBE, was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the unreconciled difference between stated personal expenditure and recorded withdrawals was assessable as unexplained expenditure.

Analysis: Section 69C was attracted because the assessee's own statement placed annual personal expenditure at a higher amount than the withdrawals reflected in the capital account. The source of the differential expenditure was within the assessee's special knowledge, but no cogent explanation or supporting evidence established that the expenditure was not incurred or was met from an explained source.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained personal expenditure under Section 69C was confirmed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Identified business receipts and corresponding available cash could not be assessed as unexplained credits without evidence of a separate undisclosed source, whereas the unexplained differential personal expenditure remained taxable.

Ratio Decidendi: A receipt accepted as arising from disclosed business activity, and cash demonstrably available from that activity, cannot be characterised as unexplained cash credit absent material establishing a distinct undisclosed source.

Issues: Whether deduction for investment in a newly constructed residential house was allowable where the plot was acquired in the spouse's name before transfer of the original house, and the permissible quantum of such deduction.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits deduction where a new residential house is constructed within three years of transfer of the original residential house. The completion of construction within that period, rather than its commencement before the transfer, is material. The construction was completed within three years from the transfer and the valuation report separately established the construction cost. However, the plot had been acquired about 17 months before the transfer and was registered in the spouse's name; its cost could not be included as eligible investment on the facts of the case. The construction and land components were separately ascertainable, and exclusion of the land cost did not justify denial of the entire construction-related deduction.

Conclusion: Deduction was allowable only for the eligible construction cost of Rs. 63,04,200 and not for the land cost of Rs. 12,37,500; the balance capital gain remained taxable.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid under Section 147 where share-capital particulars had been disclosed in the original scrutiny assessment.

Analysis: For reopening a completed scrutiny assessment beyond four years, the recorded reasons must independently disclose both a reason to believe, founded on tangible material, that income escaped assessment and the assessee's failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts. The reasons must be assessed on a stand-alone basis and cannot be supplemented later. The original assessment had specifically called for, and received, shareholder details, PANs, confirmations and banking particulars. The recorded reasons incorrectly described the assessee as a firm, alleged receipt from an alleged entry provider although the amount was received from a shareholder, and contained no material linking that person with the shareholder or the alleged accommodation entry. The reassessment addition was ultimately founded on shareholders' non-compliance with summons rather than on the purported search information. No failure by the assessee to disclose primary facts was identified.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid because the recorded reasons established neither tangible material supporting escapement of income nor failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure; the reassessment was void ab initio.

Issues: Whether the earlier appellate order warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the alleged non-consideration of seized material, coordinate-Bench decisions, and precedents concerning extrapolation of income.

Analysis: The material relating to the persons from whom documents were seized, the orders in their cases, the decision concerning alleged on-money receipts in a group concern, and the precedents on extrapolation had already been considered in the earlier order. Non-acceptance of the assessee's interpretation of the material or its claim of factual parity did not establish non-consideration. Rectification jurisdiction is confined to a patent, manifest, and self-evident mistake apparent from the record; it cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence, substitute another possible view, reconsider factual findings, or review the merits of the appeal.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established; rectification was declined against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether advertisement payments to related parties were excessive or unreasonable under section 40A(2)(b); (ii) Whether programme-production payments were subject to deduction under section 194C rather than section 194J and were allowable business expenditure; (iii) Whether invoiced advertising revenue accrued in the relevant year or constituted advance or unearned revenue taxable upon rendition of services; and (iv) Whether provision for commission expenditure was allowable in the relevant year and liable to duplicative disallowance.

Issue (i): Whether advertisement payments to related parties were excessive or unreasonable under section 40A(2)(b).

Analysis: Relationship with the payee is only a condition for invoking section 40A(2)(b); disallowance requires an objective determination that the consideration exceeds fair market value. The assessee produced rate cards, purchase orders, invoices, publication material and comparable rates showing that the effective advertising rates were below prevailing benchmarks. Aggregate billing, variation in the number of insertions, invoice format, and package-based contractual terms did not displace the comparable evidence. No contrary market evidence, inflation of expenditure, or diversion of funds was established by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The related-party advertising disallowance is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether programme-production payments were subject to deduction under section 194C rather than section 194J and were allowable business expenditure.

Analysis: Documentary evidence concerning the payee, banking transactions, invoices, purchase orders and programmes produced was not disproved. Non-appearance of the payee in response to summons, without positive evidence that the transaction was sham, could not establish falsity. The substantive nature of the expenditure prevailed over its initial accounting nomenclature. Production of programmes for broadcasting or telecasting falls within the specific scope of contractual work under section 194C and cannot be treated merely as professional or technical services under section 194J.

Conclusion: The programme-production payment is allowable and subject to section 194C; the disallowance is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invoiced advertising revenue accrued in the relevant year or constituted advance or unearned revenue taxable upon rendition of services.

Analysis: Under the mercantile system, income accrues when a legally enforceable right to receive arises; an invoice date alone is not conclusive. The service periods indicated in the invoices extended into the subsequent year, requiring verification of the underlying arrangements, actual telecast or advertising services, and the extent to which the amount was offered to tax subsequently. A revenue-neutral dispute concerning the year of recognition cannot result in double taxation.

Conclusion: The addition is set aside for limited verification and fresh adjudication, in favour of the assessee; the same income cannot be taxed twice.

Issue (iv): Whether provision for commission expenditure was allowable in the relevant year and liable to duplicative disallowance.

Analysis: Receipt of invoices in a subsequent year does not by itself determine when the underlying liability accrued, while a mere provision does not establish allowability without proof of accrual. Verification is required of the services rendered, provisions created, later invoices and adjustments, prior claims, and the amount already disallowed for tax-deduction default. The accounting entry is not decisive of the liability's true year of accrual.

Conclusion: The disallowance is set aside for fresh adjudication, in favour of the assessee; the amount already disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) cannot be disallowed again on the same basis.

Final Conclusion: The related-party advertising and programme-production disallowances cannot be sustained, while the timing of revenue recognition and commission-liability deduction must be determined upon verification without double taxation or duplicate disallowance.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance for related-party expenditure requires a fair-market-value determination supported by evidence; once the assessee substantiates consideration through reliable comparable material, the Revenue must produce contrary material to establish that the payment is excessive or unreasonable.

Issues: (i) Whether properties acquired before the alleged scheduled offence, from explained sources and standing in the spouse's name, could be attached as the value of proceeds of crime; (ii) Whether properties of equivalent value within India could be attached where the alleged proceeds of crime were abroad, notwithstanding the claimed retrospective operation of later legislative changes and subsequent inclusion of offences in the Schedule; (iii) Whether the provisional attachment lacked the statutory reason to believe and whether those reasons were required to be separately supplied; (iv) Whether allegations concerning the merits of the scheduled offence could be adjudicated in an appeal against attachment; and (v) Whether physical possession of the attached residential properties could be taken during pendency of the prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether properties acquired before the alleged scheduled offence, from explained sources and standing in the spouse's name, could be attached as the value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treats the value of proceeds of crime as part of proceeds of crime. For an equivalent-value attachment, the date of acquisition and the asserted legitimate source of the alternate property are immaterial. The record also showed that the properties were wholly or partly funded by the accused person, and no independent untainted source in the spouse's hands was established.

Conclusion: Yes. The equivalent-value attachment of the properties was valid, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether properties of equivalent value within India could be attached where the alleged proceeds of crime were abroad, notwithstanding the claimed retrospective operation of later legislative changes and subsequent inclusion of offences in the Schedule.

Analysis: Money laundering is a continuing offence. The applicability of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 depends on the continuing acts of possession, concealment, use or projection of proceeds of crime, rather than solely on the date of the scheduled offence. The statutory definition independently authorised attachment of the value of such property, and the amendment concerning property held outside India was in force when the attachment was made.

Conclusion: Yes. Attachment of equivalent-value property in India was permissible and did not involve impermissible retrospective application, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the provisional attachment lacked the statutory reason to believe and whether those reasons were required to be separately supplied.

Analysis: The provisional attachment order recorded the material relied on, the prima facie money-laundering finding, the basis for treating the properties as equivalent value, and the risk of their transfer or concealment. Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires recorded reasons but does not require a separate communication of those reasons beyond their incorporation in the attachment order.

Conclusion: No. The statutory reason to believe was duly recorded and separately supplying it was not mandatory, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iv): Whether allegations concerning the merits of the scheduled offence could be adjudicated in an appeal against attachment.

Analysis: An appeal against attachment does not confer jurisdiction to decide the merits of the scheduled offence. The scheduled-offence prosecution and the money-laundering prosecution remained pending, and no discharge, acquittal or quashing had absolved the accused person. Attachment operates as an interim protective measure while those proceedings continue.

Conclusion: No. The challenge to the merits of the scheduled offence could not be decided in the attachment appeal, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (v): Whether physical possession of the attached residential properties could be taken during pendency of the prosecution.

Analysis: Attachment does not by itself divest ownership or possession. Physical possession may be taken only in exceptional circumstances, and no such circumstance or action to take possession was shown.

Conclusion: Physical possession shall not be taken during pendency of the prosecution except in exceptional circumstances, in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The attachment remains operative as a protective measure for securing the value of the alleged proceeds of crime, while the appellants retain possession of the residential properties unless exceptional circumstances justify its displacement.

Ratio Decidendi: An equivalent-value attachment may extend to property acquired before the scheduled offence or from legitimate sources where actual proceeds of crime are unavailable, and the continuing nature of money laundering precludes a retrospectivity objection based solely on the date of the predicate offence.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2022-23 could be initiated on the premise that tax deducted at source had been claimed as a deduction under Section 43B.

Analysis: The original scrutiny assessment had specifically sought reconciliation of expenses, tax deducted at source and statutory liabilities, and the relevant particulars were furnished before the assessment was completed under Section 143(3). The audit objection proceeded on a misreading of the tax audit report and financial statements: the amount in question represented tax deducted at source on salary and other payments, not an expenditure or a deduction claimed under Section 43B. The income-tax return showed a distinct and substantially smaller deduction for leave encashment. As the material was already available and considered during scrutiny, the reopening was based on non-application of mind and amounted to a change of opinion without fresh tangible material indicating escapement of income.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was invalid, and the impugned show-cause notice and consequential order were quashed.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory customs appeal as barred by limitation should be set aside and the appeal restored for consideration on merits despite expiry of the maximum condonable period under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes sixty days for filing an appeal, with a further condonable period of thirty days. The appeal was filed approximately twelve days beyond the aggregate ninety-day period, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked statutory authority to condone that delay. The delay was attributed to the undisputed medical condition of the counsel handling the matter. As the underlying dispute concerning classification of the imported goods required merits adjudication, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked in the exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion: The limitation dismissal was set aside and the statutory appeal was restored for adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked for alleged short-payment of IGST on the imported goods; (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked for alleged short-payment of IGST on the imported goods.

Analysis: Section 28(1) governs recovery of duty short-paid for reasons other than collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, whereas Section 28(4) permits the extended limitation only where those specified ingredients are established. The importer declared the goods as rice bran, disclosed the tariff classification, and expressly claimed the notification benefit in the Bill of Entry, which was accepted by the proper officer. No material established concealment, deliberate false declaration, or suppression intended to evade duty. A subsequent departmental disagreement on classification or exemption eligibility, and a bare allegation of wilful misstatement, do not establish the jurisdictional facts necessary for Section 28(4).

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 28(4) was invalid and the demand founded on the extended period could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Although Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides an appellate remedy, the alternative-remedy rule is not absolute where the statutory conditions for assumption of jurisdiction are absent or the proceedings suffer from patent illegality. Since the essential preconditions for invoking Section 28(4) were not satisfied, relegation to the appellate remedy was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The alternative-remedy objection did not bar writ jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The extended-period recovery lacked a valid jurisdictional basis; any further action remains governed by the applicable limitation period and statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation under Section 28(4) may be invoked only on material establishing collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts; absent those jurisdictional facts, an alternative statutory appeal does not preclude writ review.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a Customs Broker without material proving knowledge, conscious involvement or collusion in the attempted export of prohibited goods; (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for abetment under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained against a Customs Broker without material proving knowledge, conscious involvement or collusion in the attempted export of prohibited goods.

Analysis: Filing shipping bills, arranging containers and processing documents supplied by the exporter are acts performed in the ordinary course of a Customs Broker's functions. Although a Customs Broker must exercise due diligence as to the correctness and completeness of information furnished to Customs, a failure to verify the source of goods or question their movement does not by itself establish the requisite mens rea for abetment. Material establishing knowledge of the actual nature of the goods, conscious involvement, or collusion with the exporter was absent.

Conclusion: The penalty for abetment was unsustainable in the absence of proof of knowledge, conscious involvement or collusion; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction in an appropriate case. As the penal finding lacked material demonstrating culpable abetment by the Customs Broker, relegating it to the appellate remedy was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The alternative appellate remedy did not preclude writ jurisdiction; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penal liability and the appellate affirmation thereof lacked a factual foundation establishing culpable abetment by the Customs Broker.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for abetment under the customs law requires material proving knowledge and conscious participation or collusion; a Customs Broker's procedural acts or lack of further inquiry, without such proof, do not establish abetment.

Issues: (i) Validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, insofar as it conditions input tax credit upon payment of tax by the supplier; (ii) Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the demand proceedings despite the statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, insofar as it conditions input tax credit upon payment of tax by the supplier.

Analysis: The condition requiring a recipient to establish through cogent material that tax charged by the supplier has actually been deposited has been upheld as neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. A supplier's default does not warrant reading down the statutory condition.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c) fails; the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the demand proceedings despite the statutory appeal.

Analysis: Questions concerning actual receipt of goods, payment of tax by suppliers, adequacy of the hearing, alleged non-application of mind, overlap under Section 6(2)(b), and duplication of demand require scrutiny of underlying material. Such factual and mixed questions are appropriately addressed in the statutory appeal under Section 107. Any alleged hearing infirmity is curable and does not establish a jurisdictional defect warranting recourse to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction will not be exercised; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal, in which all objections remain open for independent determination. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c) remains enforceable, while the merits of the input tax credit claim, hearing objection, alleged statutory bar, and asserted duplication remain undecided.

Outcome: The Civil Appeal was dismissed following dismissal of an identical appeal.

Issues: Whether settlement applications filed by 30.09.2021 had to be considered on merits where live notices under Section 153A or Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were pending on the filing date, despite the prior-eligibility condition in paragraph 4(i) of the CBDT Order dated 28.09.2021.

Analysis: Section 245A(b) defines a case as an assessment proceeding pending on the date of the settlement application, and Section 245C permits an application at any stage of that case. Section 245C(5) fixes an outer date for making an application but does not prescribe an earlier date by which eligibility must have arisen. The power under Section 119(2)(b) to relieve genuine hardship permits extension of time but cannot impose a substantive disqualification absent from the statute.

Analysis: Pendency depended upon issuance of the statutory notice, an act exclusively within the Revenue's control. Denial of settlement access because of departmental delay would permit the Revenue to benefit from its own default. Treating assessment years arising from the same search differently solely because notices were issued on different dates also lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the statutory object, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The requirement of eligibility as on 31.01.2021 in paragraph 4(i) of the CBDT Order dated 28.09.2021 and the corresponding Press Release is read down and cannot bar an assessee who had a live and unadjudicated notice under Section 153A or Section 143(2) on the filing date and applied by 30.09.2021. The affected settlement applications must be treated as pending and decided on merits by the Interim Board for Settlement.