SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1778

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, P.M.MANOJ, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Aayana Charitable Trust - Respondent
W.A.NO.2042, 2106 OF 2024, W.A.NO.161 OF 2025
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SR. STANDING COUNSEL, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA BY SMT.SUSIE B VARGHESE, STANDING COUNSEL BY SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL
For the Respondent:SRI.R.SIVARAMAN, SMT.VANDANA VYAS, SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD, SRI.JEHANGIR D. MISTRI (SR.), SRI.ANIL D. NAIR (SR.)

Eligibility for settlement applications under the Income Tax Act must align with statutory definitions, invalidating any additional conditions imposed by the CBDT.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 245A, 245C, 245AA, 245B - Writ appeals against rejection of settlement applications - The Interim Board for Settlement rejected applications for settlement on grounds of non-maintainability due to absence of pending cases as of statutory cut-off dates - The learned Single Judge ruled in favor of assessees based on prior search dates, extending eligibility to 31.03.2021 - Court clarifies that eligibility must align with statutory definitions and the CBDT order's additional conditions are ultra vires. (Paras 5, 12, 15)

(B) Interpretation of Statutes - The court emphasized that the definition of 'case' under the Act must be adhered to, and any additional cut-off conditions imposed by the CBDT were invalid. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The case revolves around the rejection of settlement applications by the Interim Board for Settlement under the I.T. Act, with disputes over the cut-off dates for eligibility and the definition of a 'pending case'.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge's interpretation was erroneous and upheld the requirement of having a pending case as defined by the I.T. Act.

Issues: The primary issue was whether assessees who received notices after the statutory cut-off could maintain applications for settlement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility for settlement applications must be strictly interpreted in accordance with the I.T. Act, and any additional conditions imposed by the CBDT are invalid.

Result: Writ appeals allowed in part; applications for settlement restored for consideration.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions filed by assessees against rejection of settlement applications under the i.t. act. (Para 2 , 4)
2. contentions from both sides regarding statutory interpretations and eligibility for settlement. (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's findings on the interpretation of statutory provisions and eligibility conditions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's ruling on the invalidity of additional conditions imposed by the cbdt. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

These Writ Appeals preferred by the Revenue impugn the common judgment dated 22.08.2024 of a learned Single Judge in the writ petitions.

The brief facts:

2. The writ petitions in question were filed by assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “I.T. Act”], aggrieved by the order of the Interim Board for Settlement that rejected the applications preferred by them for settlement of their cases in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIX-A of the I.T. Act. The reason cited by the Interim Board for Settlement for rejecting the applications was that, although the applications for settlement had been filed on or before 30.09.2021, which was the last date for receipt of valid applications for settlement, there was no case pending in relation to the assessee as on 31.01.2021, within the meaning of the provisions of Section 245C(1), Section 245A of the I.T. Act read with the Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT] Instructions F.No.299/22/2021-Dir (Inv–III)/174 dated 28.09.2021, and hence the applications in question were not maintainable before the Board. It is the legality of the said stand taken by the Interim Board that was called in question in the writ petitions.

3. In as much as a resolution of the dispute in these appeals requires us to notice the statutory provisions that were in vogue during the relevant period, we deem it apposite to extract those provisions hereunder:

The statutory provisions:

Section 245A( b ):

Definitions:

245A. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) xxxxxxxx

(b) “case” means any proceeding for assessment under this Act, of any person in respect of any assessment year or assessment years which may be pending before an Assessing Officer on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 245C is made.

Section 245A( eb ):

(eb) "pending application" means an application which was filed under section 245C and which fulfils the following conditions, namely: —

(i) it was not declared invalid under sub-section (2C) of section

245D; and (ii) no order under sub-section (4) of section 245D was issued on or before the 31st day of January, 2021 with respect to such application; Section 245AA:

Interim Boards for Settlement.

245AA. (1) The Central Government shall constitute one or more Interim Boards for Settlement, as may be necessary, for the settlement of pending applications.

(2) Every Interim Board shall consist of three members, each being an officer of the rank of Chief Commissioner, as may be nominated by the Board.

(3) If the Members of the Interim Board differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.

Section 245B(1):

Income-tax Settlement

Commission245B. (1) The Central Government shall constitute a Commission to be called the Income-tax Settlement Commission for the settlement of cases under this Chapter.

Provided that the Income-tax Settlement Commission so constituted shall cease to operate on or after the 1st day of February, 2021.

Section 245C(1):

Application for settlement of cases 245C.— (1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top