C O M M O N O R D E R

These writ petitions have been filed by petitioners seeking Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent/ the Income Tax Settlement Commission, to accept the applications filed by them under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) and proceed as per the provisions of Section 245D(1) of the Act, in accordance with law.

2. The applications in W.P. Nos.5157, 3775, 3868, 4102, 4221, 4528, 4564, 4572, 4599, 4685, 4694, 4692, 4758, 4762, 4769, 4764, 4768, 4776, 4957, 5037, 5259, 5265, 5340, 5343, 5348, 5345, 5376, 5379, 5382, 5454, 5459, 5463, 5503, 5527, 5650, 5655, 5656, 5660, 5662, 5678, 5687, 5692, 5779, 5783, 6198, 6199, 6203, 6205, 6260, 6261, 6573, 6676, 6683, 6681, 7131, 7298, 7323, 7551 & 7784 of 2021 had been presented before the registry of the Settlement Commission on 01.02.2021. In W.P.Nos.3001 & 3569 of 2021, applications were stated to have been filed even prior to 01.02.2021 and this has been recorded in my order dated 05.03.2021. In all cases, I directed that the applications be received by the Registry upon re-presentation, subject to the result of the writ petitions.

3. In the meanwhile, writ petition in W.P.No.9467 of 2021 has been filed before the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court seeking a Declaration to the effect that the provisions of Section 245A of the Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2021, are unconstitutional on various grounds as set out therein.

4. Thus the case of the petitioners for maintaining their applications before the Settlement Commission is one that would have to be argued before the Hon'ble First Bench. In the present cases, all that has been sought, is a Mandamus directing the registry of the Settlement Commission to accept their applications, and the same stands achieved by virtue of the interim orders passed on various dates directing the Settlement Commission to accept the applications. It is made clear, that no additional right, over and above what vests in the petitioners by operation of law, would vest by virtue of the interim orders granted earlier.

5. Apropos the submission that W.P. No.3001 of 2021 may be tagged with the matter pending before the Hon'ble First Bench, I am not inclined to accept the same. The petitioner has averred that the application was presented before the Settlement Commission on 29.01.2021. However, the challan that is to accompany the application (placed at page 29 of the compilation of documents accompanying the writ affidavit) reveals that the amount has been remitted only on 01.02.2021. Thus, even assuming that the application had been presented prior to 01.02.2021, it would not have been a valid application. The same position obtains in W.P. No.3569 of 2021 wherein the fee has been remitted only on

05.02.2021.

6. In response to the averments that the petitioners had approached the registry of the settlement commission prior to 29.01.2020 and were told to return after the 1st of February, 2021, since the Members were unavailable till that date, my attention is drawn to counter dated 24.02.2021 filed in W.P. No.3775 of 2021, wherein the Assessing Authority has specifically denied the aforesaid factual averments at paragraph No.6, extracted below:

'6. I submit that in reply to para 7, The petitioner in his affidavit states that the petitoner's application was ready, considering the quoram deficiency since last week of December, 2020, the application was not filed. The petitioner states that it was orally informed by the registry that the member from Mumbai Bench who was given addtional charge of Chennai Bench is expected to arrive at Chennai for physical hearing in First Week of February, 2021. Therefore the application could only be filed on or after 01.02.2021.

The statement of facts made by the petitioner is totally incorrect, as there were many applications filed after retirement of erstwhile Vice-Chairman dated:26.12.2020. The ITSC Bench, Chennai was very much functioning, the quoram was avilable, virtual hearing was happening