TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned in the petition is to an order dated 29 August, 2023 ("impugned order") passed by respondent No. 2-Interim Board for Settlement-1, New Delhi ("IBS") under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). By such orders, the petitioner's application dated 15 March, 2021 (referred as '29 September, 2021') has been rejected as not maintainable on account of the purported non-fulfillment of the requirements in the with the order dated 28 September 2021 passed under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act, issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax. The relevant observations as made in the impugned order are required to be noted, which read thus : 7.4 From the above provisions of the Act read with the order u/s 119 (2) (b) of CBDT dated 28.09.2021 mentioned and-quoted in the earlier part of this order, it is clear that for being eligible to file an application for settlement before the Interim Board for Settlement, proceedings under section 1534/153C should have commenced as on 31.01.2021. 7.5 As regards the application for the assessment year 2020-21 in case of M/s Atharv Builders and Developers( Specified Person), the return of income for the said assessment year was filed on 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench at Mumbai ("ITSC") in respect of pending assessment proceedings for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2020-21. An intimation of such application being filed was also served on the Assessing Officer/Respondent No. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a "specified person" under the first proviso to Section 245C (1) of the Act, and accordingly was entitled to maintain the settlement application. (c) Soon after the filing of the settlement application, on 28 March, 2021, Finance Bill, 2021 received Presidential assent and became Finance Act, 2021, notified with effect from 1 April, 2021. On such date, the settlement application was filed by the petitioner and the same was pending. As a consequence of the Finance Act, 2021, on 10 August, 2021, the IBS came to be constituted by the Central Government. (d) The CBDT on 28 September, 2021 issued an order under section 119 (2) (b) of the Act setting out two additional eligibility conditions for filing settlement applications, namely : (i) the assessee should be eligible to file settlement application on 31 January, 2021; and, (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and to be considered by the IBS. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents would not dispute as to what has been held by this Court in Sar Senapati as also in Vishwakarma Developers. We have already noted the ground on which the petitioner's settlement application was held to be not eligible, which is a ground akin to the rejection which had fallen for consideration before this Court in the decisions as noted by us here before. The relevant observations as made by this Court in the decision of Vishwakarma Developers are required to be noted, which read thus : 10 The Petitioner has contended that as the Petitioner's settlement application was rejected by the IBS, on 13th October, 2023 and 1st November, 2023, the Assessing Officer issued to the Petitioner a notice under Section 142 (1). It is in these circumstances, the present Petition was filed on 4th November, 2023, which also prays for a relief that the Order dated 28th September, 2021 passed by the CBDT under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Act (supra) be quashed and set aside and a writ of mandamus be issued to direct the IBS to adjudicate the Petitioner's settlement application. 11 Mr. Naniwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to be noted, which read thus :- 24 As regards the notification dated 28th September 2021 issued by the CBDT under Section 192 (2) (b) of the Act, the date for making application has been extended by the said notification to 30th September 2021, which is clearly within the scope of the powers of the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act. Section 119 of the Act provides that the Board may from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other Income Tax Authorities as it may be deemed fit for proper administration of this Act. The provisions of the section have been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UCO Bank (Supra) to mean that the Board is entitled to tone down the rigours of law by issuing circulars under Section 119 of the Act and such circulars would be binding on Income Tax Authorities. A circular, however, cannot impose on a taxpayer a burden higher than what the Act itself, on a true interpretation, envisages. Therefore, the Board had power to extend the time limit for making an application to 30th September 2021. However, to the extent it lays down an additional condition, i.e., assessee should be eligible to file an application for settlement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f almost 18 months. Respondent no.1 issued notice under Section 153A only on 5th February 2021. Hence, as respondent no.1 has delayed issuing the notice under Section 153A of the Act which entitled petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission, such right of petitioner to approach the Settlement Commission cannot be taken away by respondents by issuing a circular under Section 119 of the Act. If the notice under Section 153A of the Act would have been issued on or before 31st of January 2021, petitioner would have been eligible to make an application. Therefore, when the eligibility is dependent on the action of respondent no.1 to issue a notice and when respondent no.1 issues a notice after inordinate delay from the search, respondent no.1 should not be entitled to claim that petitioner has lost its right to approach the Settlement Commission on account of such delayed action of respondent no.1 itself. Hence, even otherwise, on the facts of the present case, respondent no.1 should be estopped from contesting/contending that petitioner is not eligible for approaching the interim board for having its application settled by the appropriate authority. 17 In the light of the above....