TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T : (PER, G.S. KULKARNI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking various reliefs, however, the substantive prayers being prayers (c) and (d) of the petition read thus : (c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the Impugned Settlement Order passed u/s 245D (4) of the Act by Respondent No. 2 on 29 December 2023 for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2020-21 (Exhibit M) as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, and arbitrary; (d) Issue a Writ of Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner filed its return of income under Section 139 (4) of the Act while its returns for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 filed earlier were pending assessment. On such backdrop, Respondent No. 4 issued to the Petitioner, a notice dated 19 March 2021 under Section 148 of the Act reopening the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year 2016-17. 7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner on 19 March, 2021 filed a Settlement Application before the ITSC, Additional Bench, Mumbai under Chapter XIX-A of the Act so to avoid protracted litigation and in relation to assessment years in question (A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2020-21), offered to tax the net profits/income embedded in the undisclosed transactions. Further, it so transp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the parties. On 29 December, 2023, for the Assessment Years in question (A.Y. 2015-16 to A.Y. 2017-18 & A.Y. 2020-21), the Interim Board for Settlement passed the impugned order holding that the Petitioner's Settlement Application was not maintainable, as the Petitioner was ineligible to file the Settlement Applications for the said assessment years as no proceedings were pending as on 31 January, 2021 for the assessment years. Being aggrieved by such orders passed by the Interim Board of Settlement, the Petitioner is before the Court. 11. At the outset, the Petitioner would contend that in similar circumstances when the application was held to be not maintainable, proceedings had reached this Court in the case of Sar Senapati Sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Petitioner therein, praying for similar reliefs was allowed by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Interim Settlement Board. It is submitted that in such decision, the Court noted not only the decision of this Court in Sar Senapati but also two other decisions, one of the Madras High Court in Jain Metal Rolling Mills Vs. Union of India [2023] 156 taxmann.com 513 (Mad) as also the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Vetrival Infrastructure Vs. DCIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 123 (Guj) as relied on behalf of the Respondents wherein the Court held that the Petitioner therein was certainly held eligible for its Settlement Application to be considered by the Interim Board for Settlement for appropriate orders to be passed on ....