IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.06.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN WA Nos.1841, 1842 of 2021 M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd, Flat No.A-1, Kumaravijayam, No.99, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai 4 : Appellant in both appeals versus

1.Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Chennai III No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034 : R-1 in WA No.1841 of 2021

1.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai III No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034 : R-1 in WA No.1842 of 2021

2.Income Tax Settlement Commission (Now substituted as Interim Board of Settlement by Finance Act, 2021)

Additional Bench, Chennai, 640, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035 : Respondents Prayer: Appeals filed against the Judgment passed by this Court in WP No.16788 of 2008 and 19364 of 2008 dated 30.04.2021.

For Appellant : Mr.R.V.Eswar, Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.V.Mahalingam COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

These appeals filed by the assessee impugn the order dated

30.04.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, allowing the petitions that were filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax, viz., respondent No.1 herein.

2. Respondent No.1 had challenged the order passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. Both provisions are identical.

3. Much after the petitions were filed and the impugned orders were delivered and even after the present appeals were filed by the assessee, the scope of challenge by the Department to the decision of the Settlement Commission came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, of which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party. The Division Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, [[2024] 161 taxmann.com 495 (Bombay)] (M/s. Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd.), and in WP No.432 of 2020 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-3) vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and others, dated 25.04.2024 (unreported) as also in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-3) vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and others, (Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt. Ltd), order dated 18.04.2024 in WP No.1830 of 2019 dealt with similar issues.

4. Paragraph Nos.7 to 15 of Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt Ltd.

(supra), read as under:

“7. The Apex Court in Jyotendrasinhji Vs. S. I. Tripathi has discussed the scope of challenge to orders passed by the ITSC. The Apex Court has held that after examining such further evidence as it may be placed before it, the ITSC may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass suchorder as it thinks fit. The Apex Court also held that the scope of enquiry is restricted to whether the order passed by the ITSC is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act and if so, apart from ground of bias, fraud and malice which, of course, constitute a separate and independent category, has it prejudiced the assessee. The Apex Court has held that the order of the ITSC is in the nature of a package deal and that it may not be ordinarily possible to dissect its order and accept what is favourable and reject what is not. Moreover, it is open to the ITSC to accept an amount of tax by way of settlement and to prescribe the manner in which it is to be paid. The Apex Court further held that the ITSC has the discretion to condone the defaults, penalties or prosecution, where it thinks appropriate. Thus, the sole limitation upon the ITSC is to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The ITSC, as held in Jyotendrasinhji (supra), need not even give reasons. The Apex Court further held that even if the interpretation placed by the ITSC on documents is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference since a wrong interpretation of documents cannot be said to be a v