https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784618 During pendency of a settlement application before the Settlement Commission, the question was whether appellate remedies stood extinguished and whether the Tribunal erred in condoning long delay and remanding the first appeal. The SC held that appellate proceedings revive only if the settlement application is rejected without providing terms of settlement, attracting s.245HA; until an order under s.245D(4) is passed, the assessee is not required to forgo the right to contest the assessment on merits. The Revenue's contention that rejection of settlement necessarily bars merits challenge was misconceived and rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal's condonation of delay and its order setting aside the first appellate order and restoring the appeal for decision on merits were upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:22:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784618 During pendency of a settlement application before the Settlement Commission, the question was whether appellate remedies stood extinguished and whether the Tribunal erred in condoning long delay and remanding the first appeal. The SC held that appellate proceedings revive only if the settlement application is rejected without providing terms of settlement, attracting s.245HA; until an order under s.245D(4) is passed, the assessee is not required to forgo the right to contest the assessment on merits. The Revenue's contention that rejection of settlement necessarily bars merits challenge was misconceived and rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal's condonation of delay and its order setting aside the first appellate order and restoring the appeal for decision on merits were upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784618