IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the CBDT cannot impose additional eligibility conditions for settlement applications beyond what is prescribed in the Income Tax Act.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India although has prayed for number of reliefs, the only reliefs being pressed by Mr. Naniwadekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner are Prayer Clauses (c) & (d), which 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 26 September 2023 (Exhibit L), and the Impugned Notices issued by Respondent No. 4 u/s. 142(1) of the Act for Ays 2015-16 to 2020-21 (Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-12) as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary.

(d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No. 2 to proceed with the adjudication and consideration of the Petitioner’s Settlement Application dated 25 March 2021 bearing No. MH/PUCC/097/2020-21/IT on its merits and in accordance with law, without reference to the issue of eligibility raised by Respondent No. 3 in relation to the Impugned CBDT Order issued by Respondent No. 1.”

3. The relevant facts are required to be noted. On 22nd November, 2019, search was conducted at the premises of the Petitioner’s partners. On 23rd March, 2021, notices under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2019-20 and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21 were issued to the Petitioner. In these circumstances, on 25th March, 2021 the Petitioner was entitled to file a Settlement Application for the Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 28th March, 2021, Finance Act, 2021 was enacted, as a consequence of which the Settlement Commission came to be abolished, consequent to which the jurisdiction of such Commission to deal with pending applications was transferred to the Interim Board of Settlement. The Interim Board came to be constituted by the Central Government on 10th August, 2021 by a Notification No. 91 of 2021.

5. It is contended that the CBDT issued a Press Release dated 7th September, 2021, in view of the orders passed by the High Courts informing the public at large that a settlement application could be filed even after 1st February, 2021, being the date when the Finance Bill was introduced. It was also informed that the settlement application could be filed by taxpayers till 30th September, 2021.

6. On such backdrop on 22nd September, 2021, the Petitioner re-filed the Settlement Application pursuant to such press release and paid additional interest for the period of March 2021 to September 2021.

7. On 28th September, 2021, the CBDT however issued another Order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which was also subject matter of the press release, in which two additional conditions were incorporated in Para 4, in the context of Section 245C(5), to the effect that applications could be filed by the assesses, who were eligible, to make an application as on 31st January, 2021 and who had assessment proceedings pending on the date of filing of the settlement application.

8. The Petitioner contends that during the period August 2022 to September 2023, settlement proceedings were conducted by the Interim Board of Settlement (for short “IBS”) constituted by the Central Government vide a Notification dated 10th August, 2021 (supra). The petitioner’s application was placed before the IBS. The Petitioner from time to time pursued the said proceedings before the IBS as also submissions on behalf of the Petitioner were filed.

9. The IBS passed final/impugned orders on the Petitioner’s application on 26th September, 2023, which held that the Petit