TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional and violative of the provisions of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the CBDT order dated 28.09.2021 being ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for quashing the order of the Settlement Commission dated 14.01.2022. 3. The appellants filed applications under Section 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 before the Settlement Commission (IT & WT) Additional Bench, Kolkata on 17.03.2021 for the settlement of his income tax matters for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2020-21. The appellants were subjected to search and seizure operations under the 132 of the Act on 16.01.2020 and notices under Section 153 (A) of the Act were issued to them on 02.02.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20. The Secretary, Settlement Commission IT & WT Additional Bench, Kolkata, by an order dated 14.01.2022, held that the application is treated as invalid and is not allowed to be proceeded with Section 245 (D) 1 of the Act. It was observed in the said order that the requisite conditions or pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been accepted and entertained by the Settlement Commission. 7. Heard Mr. Kundalia, learned advocate for the Income Tax Department on such submission. 8. The issue as to whether paragraph 4(i) of the circular dated 28.09.2021 is bad in law in as much as it imposes a condition of liability to file application for settlement as on 31.01.2021 along with the issue as to whether the Finance Act, 2021 is unconstitutional in as much as by giving retrospective application with effect from 01.02.2021 fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Jain Metal Rolling Mills vs. Union of India and Others reported at (2024) 461 ITR 423 (Mad). In paragraph 34 of the said reports 3 questions were formulated, which are set out hereunder. "34. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the cases. The following three questions arise for consideration in the present cases : "(i) Whether or not paragraph 4 (i) of the circular, dated September 28, 2021 ([2021] 438 ITR (St.) 5) is bad in law inasmuch as it imposes a condition of eligibility to file application for settlement as on Janua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the modifications mentioned therein. In this background, the circular can only grant administrative relief to the assesses. Therefore, considering the fact that the Finance Act, 2021 ([2021] 432 ITR (St.) 52) was retrospective in nature, those who have had a right to approach the Income-tax Settlement Commission, i.e., those who had a case pending against them would have missed the bus in not actually filing the application before the Income-tax Settlement Commission as the same was retrospectively made inoperative. Only for the said action of filing the application, the circular extend the date by September 30, 2021, even though as per the Act, it was only February 1, 2021. In that context, when paragraph No. 4 categorically states that only those assesses who are eligible to file an application for settlement as on January 31, 2021, it cannot be said that it introduces an additional clause of eligibility which is not found in the statute. On the other hand, if only such clause 4 (i) is not there, it would render violence to the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contentions on behalf of the writ petitioners that the circular imposes an additional condi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2021 to March 31, 2021 shall be deemed to be pending applications for the purposes of consideration by the Interim Board; (iv) Wherever they are rejected on the ground that they did not have a case pending as on January 31, 2021, such orders shall stand set aside and the applications shall be deemed to be pending applications for the consideration by the Interim Board, if otherwise in order and eligible, and shall be dealt with in accordance with law on the merits in accordance with the scheme that may be framed by the Central Government as in respect of the other cases which arose prior to January 31, 2021 ; (v) No costs. Consequently all miscellaneous applications shall stand closed." 12. An SLP (Civil) Diary No. 21948 of 2024 was preferred against the judgment dated 17.11.2023 passed in a batch of writ petitions and one of which is Jain Metal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 09.07.2024 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 13. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported at (2024) 161 taxmann.com 166 (Bombay) after noting the d....