https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363155 The High Court held that the Settlement Commission erred in declaring abatement without considering the reasons for delay attributable to the petitioners. Despite the Supreme Court not deciding the related case on merits, the petitioners' rights and contentions should not be extinguished. The law was clear post the Bombay High Court judgment and Supreme Court's approval, requiring the Settlement Commission to apply such law. Since no finding was recorded attributing the delay to the petitioners, and no material was presented to support further inquiry, the application for settlement should not be considered belated solely based on the previous court approach. Consequently, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission was set aside, and the proceedings were revived for disposal in accordance with the law. All petitions were disposed of accordingly. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Mar 2019 15:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363155 The High Court held that the Settlement Commission erred in declaring abatement without considering the reasons for delay attributable to the petitioners. Despite the Supreme Court not deciding the related case on merits, the petitioners' rights and contentions should not be extinguished. The law was clear post the Bombay High Court judgment and Supreme Court's approval, requiring the Settlement Commission to apply such law. Since no finding was recorded attributing the delay to the petitioners, and no material was presented to support further inquiry, the application for settlement should not be considered belated solely based on the previous court approach. Consequently, the impugned order of the Settlement Commission was set aside, and the proceedings were revived for disposal in accordance with the law. All petitions were disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363155