Whether It Is To Be Circulated To The Civil Judge ? v. Income Tax Officer & 3

C/SCA/8761/2014 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8761 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================PUKHRAJ BHABHUTMAL SHAH....Petitioner(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & 3....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIandHONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI Date : 26/09/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs: “(A)This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing order under section 254(2D) r.w.s. 254HA(1)(ii) of the Settlement Commission at Exhibit-L. (B)Failing that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing order of the Tribunal dated 23.01.2001 in ITA 170/Ahd/1997 at Exhibit-I and thereafter, reinstating the appeal of the petitioner with the Tribunal.” 2.The petitioner is assessed in the status of an individual under the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Pursuant to a search carried out on 12.12.1995 under section 132(1) of the Act at the residential premises of the petitioner, a notice under section 158BC of the Act came to be served upon the petitioner on 15.4.1996 directing him to file return of income for the block period 1.4.1985 to 12.12.1995. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed return of income on 17.10.1996. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a settlement application under section 245C of the Act on 14.10.1996 declaring undisclosed income of Rs.20 lakhs. Subsequently, by a letter dated 27.12.1996, the petitioner revised the undisclosed income by substituting a lesser income of Rs.5 lakhs in place of the earlier declared income of Rs.20 lakhs which was received by the Commission on 30[th] December, 1996. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer proceeded further with the block assessment and by an order dated 22.8.1997 made under section 158BC of the Act assessed the total income of the petitioner at Rs.4,27,341/- and determined the tax payable at 60% thereof at Rs.2,56,20,204/-. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being ITA No.170/Ahd/1997. Thereafter, by an order dated 11.9.1999, the Settlement Commission admitted the settlement application under section 245D(1) of the Act with a direction to the petitioner to pay the additional amount of tax payable on the income disclosed in the application within 35 days of receipt of the order and furnish proof of payment to the Secretary of the Additional Bench and the Assessing Officer assessing them, within 15 days of making the said payment. The Commission further directed that if the applicant/petitioner does not pay the additional amount of income tax payable within the time specified in sub-section (2A) of section 245D of the Act, the amount of income tax remaining unpaid together with interest payable thereon under sub-section (2C) of section 245D of the Act shall be recovered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions of section 245D (2D) of the Act. The Commission further observed that payment of additional tax within 35 days as required will be taken into consideration in evaluating the cooperation of the petitioner in the proceedings before it. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed a statement before the Commission to the effect that the department had with it the cash of Rs.8,42,500/- seized during the course of the search. That the petitioner had declared undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/- and that 60% thereof would come to Rs.3,00,000/- and that the tax to the said extent stood covered by the above seized cash of Rs.8,42,500/-. By a letter dated 3.11.1999, the petitioner requested the Assessing Officer to adjust the payment payable of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act against the seized amount of Rs.8,42,500/-. It appears that no reply was received by the petitioner from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and no recovery proceedings had undertaken in respect of the said payment of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he, therefore, understood that the dues payable according to the order of the Settlement Commission were duly paid. 3.After the petitioner’s case came to be admitted by the Settlement Commission, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal came up for hearing on 16.1.2001. Since the petitioner’s case already stood admitted by the Commission, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 12.1.2001 to the Tribunal pointing out that since the Settlement Commission had already admitted its case, the appeal may be adjourned. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.1.2001, the petitioner withdrew the appeal in the light of the fact that the matter was pending before the Commission after admission of the application. 4.Later on, the petitioner also made a submission dated 20.2.2008 to the Commission stating that the tax due under section 245D(1) of the Act was Rs.3,00,000/- and in view of the fact that the department had seized the cash of Rs.8,42,500/-, the same stood fully paid in time. Even 4.Later on, the petitioner also made a submission dated 20.2.2008 to the Commission stating that the tax due under section 245D(1) of the Act was Rs.3,00,000/- and in view of the fact that the department had seized the cash of Rs.8,42,500/-, the same stood fully paid in time. Even thereafter, there was no communication to the petitioner either from the Assessing Officer or from the office of the Settlement Commission regarding non-payment or short payment of tax payable under section 245D(2A) of the Act. Eventually, the petitioner received a notice of hearing under section 245D(2D) read with section 245HA(1)(ii) of the Act fixing the hearing on 16.9.2013, which came to be adjourned to 25.11.2013. 5.At the time of the hearing before the Settlement Commission, the Commissioner of Income Tax representing the Department pointed out that the petitioner had not paid the tax due as per the disclosure and had, thus, violated the provisions of section 245D(2D) of the Act and resultantly the proceedings before the Commission have abated. On behalf of the petitioner, it was pointed out to the Commission that the amount was fully paid as per the revised disclosure which was communicated to the Assessing Officer as well as the Commission. During the course of hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to deposit the difference of tax with interest as per the original disclosure of Rs.20,00,000/-. By the impugned order dated 2.12.2013 made under section 245D(2D) read with section 245HA(1)(ii), the Commission held that in view of the noncompliance with the provisions of section 245D(2D) of the Act, the proceedings in the case abate as per the provisions of section 245HA(1)(ii) of the Act and directed that the Assessing Officer shall now dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 245HA of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking the reliefs noted hereinabove. 6.Mr. J. P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order by submitting that the Commission, by its order dated 11.1.1999 under section 245D(1) of the Act, directed the petitioner to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application. It was submitted that the petitioner had filed a revised statement declaring the undisclosed income at Rs.5,00,000/- and, accordingly, the tax payable at the rate of 60% would come to Rs.3,00,000/-. It was submitted that the Department had already in its custody Rs.8,42,500/- in cash which was seized from the petitioner during the course of the search proceedings which was lying with it. Therefore, the petitioner had informed the Settlement Commission as well as the Assessing Officer to adjust the said amount towards the tax payable by the petitioner pursuant to the order made by the Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act. It was submitted that since there was no communication from either the Assessing Officer or from the office of the Settlement Commission seeking to recover any amount from the petitioner, the petitioner had reason to believe that the Assessing Officer had adjusted the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- payable under the order of the Commission against the amount seized by the Department as requested by the petitioner. It was pointed out that in the order under section 245D(1) of the Act, the Commission has specifically observed that if the petitioner does not pay the additional amount of income tax within the time specified in sub-section (2A) of section 245D of the Act, the amount of income tax remaining unpaid together with interest shall be recovered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with section 245D (2D) of the Act, to submit that despite the fact that the order of the Settlement Commission was made on 11[th] September, 1999, no steps were taken by the Assessing Officer under section 245D(2D) of the Act and as a result, the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that his request for adjusting the amount of tax payable under the order under section 245D(1) against the amount seized by the department had been accepted. That it was only after the notice came to be issued by the Commission in the year 2013, that the petitioner came to know that the Department had not adjusted the amount of tax payable under the said order against the amount seized by it. It was submitted that even at that stage, the petitioner had expressed his willingness before the Commission to deposit the amount of tax on the total undisclosed amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the Commission did not accept the offer of the petitioner and passed the impugned order under section 245HA of the Act. 6.1The learned counsel submitted that at the relevant time, the position of law was that it was permissible for an assessee to file a revised declaration before the Commission and hence, the petitioner had filed the revised declaration of undisclosed income of Rs.5,00,000/- and had, accordingly, called upon the Assessing Officer to adjust the tax payable thereon from the amount seized by the Department. It was submitted that in view of the continuous fluctuation in the law, the present situation had arisen and that the Commission was not justified in not accepting the offer of the petitioner to pay the tax payable on the undisclosed income and in holding that the proceedings have abated. 6.2Alternatively, it was submitted that in case the court is of the view that the order passed by the Settlement Commission does not require to be interfered with, the petitioner’s appeal preferred before the Tribunal may be ordered to be restored as otherwise the petitioner would be left with no remedy. Referring to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 245HA of the Act, it was submitted that in the light of the said provision, upon abatement of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, the Income Tax Authority before whom the proceedings at the time of making the application was pending, is required to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application under section 245C had been made. It was submitted that at the time when the application was made, the matter was pending before the Assessing Officer and that the assessee has no objection if the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer, though the more appropriate course of action would be to send the assessee to the Tribunal. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the Commission deserves to be quashed and set aside and in the alternate, the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal is required to be restored. 7.Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, invited the attention of the court to the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act which make provision for“Settlement of Cases”. Referring to the provisions of section 245C of the Act, it was submitted that the same provide for the assessee making an application in the prescribed form containing a full and true disclosure of the income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer; the manner in which such income has been derived; 7.Vehemently opposing the petition, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent, invited the attention of the court to the provisions of Chapter XIXA of the Act which make provision for“Settlement of Cases”. Referring to the provisions of section 245C of the Act, it was submitted that the same provide for the assessee making an application in the prescribed form containing a full and true disclosure of the 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 Settlement Commission to have the case settled.It was pointed out that under sub-section (1) of section 245D of the Act, the Commission may either by an order in writing reject the application or allow the application to be proceeded with. Under sub-section (2D) of section 245D of the Act, where an application was made under sub-section (1) of section 245C before the first day of June, 2007 and an order under the provisions of sub-section (1) of that section, as they stood immediately before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, allowing the application to have been proceeded with, has been passed before the first day of June, 2007, but an order under the provisions of sub-section (4), as they stood immediately before the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, was not passed before the first day of June, 2007, such application shall not be allowed to be further proceeded with unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before 31[st] July, 2007. It was submitted that in the facts of the present case, the order under section 245D(1) came to be made on 10.9.1999 and, hence, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2D) of section 245D, the additional tax on the income disclosed in the application and the interest thereon was required to be paid on or before 31[st] June, 2007. It was pointed out that in the facts of the present case, the Settlement Commission, by its order dated 11.9.1999, had directed the petitioner, within 35 days of receipt of the order to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application and to furnish proof of such payment to the Secretary of the Additional Bench and the Assessing Officer assessing them within 15 days of making the such payment. It was submitted that the petitioner, till the date the matter came up for hearing before the Commission on 16.9.2013 and 25.11.2013, had not deposited the amount payable pursuant to the order made under section 245D(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, in view of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (2D) of section 245D of the Act, the Settlement Commission had no power to allow the application to be proceeded with as the additional tax on the income disclosed in the application under section 245 and the interest thereon had not been paid on or before the 31[st] day of July, 2007. payment to the Secretary of the Additional Bench and the Assessing Officer assessing them within 15 days of making the such payment. It was submitted that the petitioner, till the date the matter came up for hearing before the Commission on 16.9.2013 and 25.11.2013, had not deposited the amount payable pursuant to the order made under section 245D(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, in view of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (2D) of section 245D of the Act, the Settlement Commission had no power to allow the application to be proceeded with as the additional tax on the income disclosed in the application under section 245 and the interest thereon had not been paid on or before the 31[st] day of July, 2007. 7.1Next, it was submitted that the petitioner, after making the application under section 245C of the Act, had moved a revised application revising the disclosure to Rs.5 lakhs instead of Rs.20 lakhs, as made in the original application, however, no order had been made by the Commission under section 245D (1) accepting or revising the disclosure to Rs.5 lakhs. Under the circumstances, even if the submission of the petitioner that the Department was required to adjust the amount of cash of Rs.8,42,500/- against the amount payable under the order made under section 245D(1) of the Act were to be accepted, it is apparent that the petitioner had not deposited the additional tax payable on the disclosed amount together with the interest thereon, inasmuch as, the amount as computed by the petitioner is based upon the revised disclosure of Rs.5 lakhs and not Rs.20 lakhs. 7.2It was further submitted that insofar as the cash seized by the Department during the course of search is concerned, before the order under section 245D(1) came to be made by the Commission on 10.9.1999, the block assessment order under section 158BC of the Act had been passed by the Assessing Officer on 22.8.1997 computing the total undisclosed income for the block period at Rs.4,27,00,341/- and the seized cash of Rs.8.42,500/- was adjusted on 29.9.1997 against the demand raised. The petitioner, after the order under section 245D(1) of the Act came to be made on 10.9.1999, had not paid any other amount pursuant to his disclosure of Rs.20 lakhs declared in the settlement application dated 22.10.1996. It was submitted that in view of the non-compliance of the order made under section 245D(1) of the Act, the Commission was justified in holding that the petitioner was required to pay the tax on or before 31.7.2007 so as not to be hit by the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2007. Under the circumstances, the Commission was wholly justified in holding that in view of the non-compliance with the provisions of section 245D(2D) of the Act, the proceedings before it would abate in view of the provisions of section 245HA(I)(II) of the Act. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission being in consonance with the provisions of section 245D and 245HA of the Act, there is no warrant for interference. 7.3Insofar as the alternate prayer challenging the order dated 23.1.2001 made by the Tribunal in ITA/170/Ahd/1997 and seeking reinstatement of the appeal of the petitioner with the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the said prayer would amount to add something in the statute and, hence, is not permissible in law. Referring to the 7.3Insofar as the alternate prayer challenging the order dated 23.1.2001 made by the Tribunal in ITA/170/Ahd/1997 and seeking reinstatement of the appeal of the petitioner with the Tribunal is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the said prayer would amount to add something in the statute and, hence, is not permissible in law. Referring to the provisions of section 245HA of the Act, it was submitted that sub-section (2) thereof provides that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates, the Assessing Officer, or, as the case may be, any other income-tax authority before whom the proceeding at the time of making the application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application under section 245C had been made. Referring to the provisions of section 116 of the Act, it was pointed out that as to who are the income-tax authorities has been provided under the said section and that the class of income-tax authorities for the purposes of the Act does not include the Tribunal and, hence, the question of restoring the appeal to the Tribunal would not arise in the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner while making the application before the Settlement Commission has taken a calculated risk and, hence, cannot seek the benefit in equity which is contrary to the statutory provisions. Referring to the provisions of section 245M which came to be subsequently omitted, it was submitted that there being no provision of restoring the appeal to the Tribunal, the alternate relief prayed for cannot be granted. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Calcutta v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another, (1979) 118 ITR 461, to point out that it was only in the light of the provisions of section 245M, that an appeal could be restored to the Tribunal. However, in view of the deletion of the said provision from the statute book, it is no longer permissible for this court to restore the appeal to the Tribunal. counsel for the respective parties had placed reliance on various decisions, reference to which shall be made at an appropriate stage. 9.From the facts and contentions noted hereinabove, two questions that arise for consideration are; firstly, as to whether the Commission was justified in holding that the proceedings before it abate in view of the non-deposit of the amount of additional tax together with interest as directed by it by the order under section 245D(D1) of the Act. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the next question that would arise for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the alternate relief prayed for in the petition, namely, for restoration of the appeal filed by it before the Tribunal against the order made by the Assessing Officer under section 158BC of the Act. 10.From the facts noted hereinabove, it clearly emerges that pursuant to the application dated 14.10.1996 made by the petitioner under section 245C of the Act, the Commission, by an order dated 11.10.1999, admitted the appeal of the petitioner and four others under section 245D(1) of the Act whereby the petitioner was directed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2A) of section 245D of the Act to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application within a period of 35 days from the receipt of that order and to furnish proof of such payment to the Secretary of the Additional Bench and the Assessing Officer assessing them within 15 days of making of the said payment. The petitioner, initially, in the application made under section 245C of the Act, had declared undisclosed income at Rs.20 lakhs. However, subsequently, the application came to be revised by a letter dated 27.12.1996 whereby the petitioner declared the undisclosed income at Rs.5 lakhs instead of Rs.20 lakhs. The Commission, while passing the order under section 245D(1) of the Act, did not make any reference to the revised declaration of undisclosed income made by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was required to pay the additional tax on the basis of the original application under section 245C of the Act. The petitioner, instead of depositing the additional tax on the undisclosed amount, filed a statement before the Commission that in view of the fact that the Department had already with it the cash of Rs.8,42,500/- seized in the search, the tax of Rs.3 lakhs being 60% of Rs.5 lakhs disclosed stands already paid and covered by the above seized cash of Rs.8,42,500/-. It appears that pursuant to the above statement made by the petitioner, there was no response from the Commission or from the income-tax authorities nor were any steps taken to recover the amount that the petitioner was liable to pay pursuant to the order made by the Settlement Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 245D(2D) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 1.6.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that he was under a bona fide belief that the statement made by him before the Commission for adjustment of the amount of additional tax payable under the order under section 245D(1) from the cash seized during the course of the search proceedings had been accepted. It was only at the stage when the application under section 245C of the Act came up for hearing that the petitioner came to know that the statement made by him had not been accepted. At this stage, the petitioner also expressed willingness before the Commission to pay the entire amount of additional tax, however, the Commission declined to accept the proposal of the petitioner and passed the impugned order under section 245HA(1)(ii) of the Act. 11.Before adverting to the merits of the impugned order, it may be necessary to consider as to whether the petitioner can be said to have complied with the order made by the Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner, in the application under section 245C of the Act, had declared undisclosed income of Rs.20 lakhs. However, subsequently, the petitioner filed a revised statement declaring the undisclosed amount at Rs.5 lakhs instead of Rs.20 lakhs. In this regard, it may be germane to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 326 ITR 642 (SC), wherein the court has held that disclosure of “full and true” particulars of undisclosed income and “the manner” in which such income has been derived are the pre-requisites for a valid application under section 245C(1) of the Act. A “full and true” disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed by the assessee, being a pre-condition for a valid application under section 245C(1) of the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income as disclosed in the application against item No.11 of Form No.34B. Moreover, if an assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he would be making a fresh application in relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier application. In this regard, section 245C(3) of the Act which prohibits the withdrawal of an application once made under sub-section (1) of the said section is instructive inasmuch as it manifests that an assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedings. Therefore, by revising the application, the applicant would be achieving something indirectly what he cannot otherwise achieve directly and in the process rendering the provision of sub-section (3) of section 245C of the Act otiose and meaningless. The court was of the view that the scheme of the said Chapter is clear and admits of no ambiguity. It was held that in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under that section in the prescribed form. The court was accordingly of the view that revision of the annexure to the application is tantamount to revision of the application, not contemplated in the scheme. 12.In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision, it is apparent that it was not permissible for the petitioner to revise the application made by it under section 245C(1) of the Act. Under the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to pay the additional tax in terms of the original application made by him under section 245C of the Act, whereby he had declared the undisclosed income at Rs. 20 lakhs. Once the undisclosed income is considered to be Rs.20 lakhs, even if the submission of the petitioner that the amount of cash seized by the department at the time of the search was required to be adjusted against the additional tax payable pursuant to the order under section 245D(1) were to be accepted, the amount of Rs.8,42,500/- would not form 60% of Rs.20 lakhs and, hence, it is apparent that the petitioner has not duly complied with the order made by the Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act. Besides, from the facts as emerging from the record, it is apparent that before the order under section 245D(1) of the Act came to be made by the Commission, the Assessing Officer had already passed the order under section 158BC of the Act and had adjusted the seized amount against the tax payable under the said order. Therefore, even otherwise, no amount remained with the Assessing Officer for adjusting the same against the additional tax payable by the petitioner pursuant to the order under section 245D(1) of the Act. In any eventuality, the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 10.9.1999 made by the Commission directing the petitioner to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application within the time limit stated therein. 13.The Commission, in the impugned order, was of the considered opinion that the revised application dated 27.12.1996 which reduced the quantum of declaration from Rs.20 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs is not a valid application permissible under law and that the first application filed on 22.10.1996 being the only valid application, had been referred to by the Commission in the order passed under section 245D(1) of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have taken care to pay the required tax on or before 31.7.2007 so as not to be hit by the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2007. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajmera Housing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra), the Commission held there is no provision of revising the settlement application made under section 245C of the Act. In view of the non-compliance of the provision of section 245D(2D) of the Act, the Commission observed that the proceedings abate as per the provision of section 245HA(1)(II) of the Act and, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the cases in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) of section 245HA of the Act. Act. In view of the non-compliance of the provision of section 245D(2D) of the Act, the Commission observed that the proceedings abate as per the provision of section 245HA(1)(II) of the Act and, accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to dispose of the cases in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2)(3) and (4) of section 245HA of the Act. 14.On behalf of the petitioner it has been emphatically argued that if the statement of the petitioner to adjust the cash seized by the Department against the amount payable under the order of the Commission were not acceptable, the respondents ought to have responded to the same. In the absence of any response from the Settlement Commission and the income-tax authorities, the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that his offer had been accepted. It has also been contended that before the Commission, at the time of hearing pursuant to the notice under section 245D(2D) and 245HA(1)(ii) of the Act, the petitioner had offered to pay the entire amount payable under the order made by the Commission under section 245D(1) of the Act. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the provisions of section 245D(2D) of the Act which lay down thus: “(2D) Where an application was made under sub-section (1) of section 245C before the 1st day of June, 2007 and an order under the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, allowing the application to have been proceeded with, has been passed before the 1st day of June, 2007, but an order under the provisions of sub-section (4), as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, was not passed before the 1st day of June, 2007, such application shall not be allowed to be further proceeded with unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time already granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007.” In the light of the provisions of sub-section (2D) of section 245D of the Act, it is not permissible for the Settlement Commission to proceed with an application made under section 245C(1) of the Act on which an order under the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof had been passed before 1.6.2007, unless the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time already granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before 21.7.2007. Thus, in case where an order under sub-section (1) of section 245C of the Act has been made on an application made under that sub-section before 1.6.2007, the statute bars payment of the additional tax with interest thereon after 31.7.2007. The last date for payment of the additional tax with interest thereon, therefore, was 31.7.2007. The petitioner, having failed to pay the same before the time limit prescribed by the statute, the Settlement Commission had no power to allow the application to be proceeded with. 15.At this juncture reference may be made to the provisions of section 245HA of the Act, which read thus: “245HA. Abatement of proceeding before Settlement Commission.—(1) Where — (i) an application made under section 245C on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 has been rejected under sub-section (1) of section 245D; or (ii) an application made under section 245C has not been allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (2A) or further proceeded with under sub-section (2D) of section 245D; or (iii) an application made under section 245C has been declared as invalid under sub-section (2C) of section 245D; or (iv)in respect of any other application made under section 245C, an order under sub-section (4) of section 245D has not been passed within the time or period specified under sub-section (4A) of section 245D, “245HA. Abatement of proceeding before Settlement Commission.—(1) Where — (i) an application made under section 245C on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 has been rejected under sub-section (1) of section 245D; or (ii) an application made under section 245C has not been allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (2A) or further proceeded with under sub-section (2D) of section 245D; or (iii) an application made under section 245C has been declared as invalid under sub-section (2C) of section 245D; or (iv)in respect of any other application made under section 245C, an order under sub-section (4) of section 245D has not been passed within the time or period specified under sub-section (4A) of section 245D, the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date. Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-section, “specified date” means— (a) in respect of an application referred to in clause (i), the day on which the application was rejected;the day on which the application was rejected; (b) in respect of an application referred to in clause (ii), the 31st day of July, 2007;the 31st day of July, 2007; (c) in respect of an application referred to in clause (iii), the last day of the month in which the application was declared invalid;the last day of the month in which the application was declared invalid; (d) in respect of an application referred to in clause (iv), on the date on which the time or period specified in sub-section (4-A) of Section 245-D expires.on the date on which the time or period specified in sub-section (4-A) of Section 245-D expires. (2) Where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates, the Assessing Officer, or, as the case may be, any other income tax authority before whom the proceeding at the time of making the application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if no application under section 245C had been made. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer, or, as the case may be, other income tax authority, shall be entitled to use all the material and other information produced by the assessee before the Settlement Commission or the results of the inquiry held or evidence recorded by the Settlement Commission in the course of the proceedings before it, as if such material, information, inquiry and evidence had been produced before the Assessing Officer or other income tax authority or held or recorded by him in the course of the proceedings before him. (4) For the purposes of the time-limit under sections 149, 153, 153B, 154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or 244 or, as the case may be, Section 244A, for making the assessment or reassessment under sub-section (2), the period commencing on and from the date of the application to the Settlement Commission under section 245C and ending with “specified date” referred to in sub-section (1) shall be excluded; and where the assessee is a firm, for the purposes of the time-limit for cancellation of registration of the firm under sub-section (1) of Section 186, the period aforesaid shall, likewise, be excluded.” (4) For the purposes of the time-limit under sections 149, 153, 153B, 154, 155, 158BE and 231 and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 243 or 244 or, as the case may be, Section 244A, for making the assessment or reassessment under sub-section (2), the period commencing on and from the date of the application to the Settlement Commission under section 245C and ending with “specified date” referred to in sub-section (1) shall be excluded; and where the assessee is a firm, for the purposes of the time-limit for cancellation of registration of the firm under sub-section (1) of Section 186, the period aforesaid shall, likewise, be excluded.” On a plain reading of the clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 245HA of the Act, it is manifest that in case where an application under section 245C has not been allowed to be further proceeded with under sub-section (2D) of section 245D, the proceedings before the Settlement Commission shall abate on the specified date. “Specified date” in respect of an application referred to in clause (ii) is 31[st] July, 2007. Clearly, therefore, by virtue of operation of law, that is, in view of the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 245HA read with clause (b) to the Explanation thereto, the application made by the petitioner under section 245C of the Act stood abated on the specified date, that is, 31[st] July, 2007. The Settlement Commission, therefore, committed no error in holding that the application made by the petitioner under section 245C of the Act stands abated. In fact the Settlement Commission has expressly stated what is implied in law, inasmuch as, the abatement is by virtue of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 245HA of the Act. 16.In the light of the above discussion, it is not possible to state that there is any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission warranting interference. 17.The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the alternative relief prayed for in the petition. On behalf of the respondents, such prayer has been resisted on the ground that section 245HA of the Act does not permit restoration of an appeal before the Tribunal. 18.From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that at the relevant time when the application under section 254C(1) of the Act came to be made by the petitioner, the assessment proceedings under section 158BC of the Act were pending before the Assessing Officer. However, before the order under section 245D(1) of the Act came to be made by the Commission allowing the application to be proceeded with, the Assessing Officer had already passed the assessment order under section 158BC of the Act and, hence, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order before the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Commission, by the order dated 10.9.1999, permitted the application to be proceeded with under section 245D(1) of the Act. In the light of the fact that the Commission had allowed the application made by the petitioner to be proceeded with, the Tribunal insisted upon withdrawal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order under section 158BC of the Act; and by an order dated 23.1.2001, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal as the application under section 245C had been admitted by the Commission and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Subsequently, by virtue of the order passed under section 245HA of the Act, the proceedings before the Commission stand abated and, hence, the petitioner has prayed for the alternative relief of restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal. alternative relief of restoration of the appeal before the Tribunal. 19.Sub-section (2) of section 245HA of the Act provides that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates, the Assessing Officer, or, as the case may be, any other income tax authority before whom the proceeding at the time of making the application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application under section 245C had been made. In the present case, at the time when the petitioner made the application under section 245C of the Act, the assessment proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer. However, before the Settlement Commission passed the order under section 245D(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had already made the order under section 158BC of the Act. 20.At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Damani Brothers, (2003) 259 ITR 475 wherein the court was considering the question as to whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer prior to the submission of settlement application under section 245C of the Act, will subsist and the recovery proceedings will continue or not? The court held that the scheme of Chapter XIX-A shows that the filing of application by the assessee is a unilateral act, and the department may not be aware of the same. It has to be noted that if an application for settlement is filed under section 245C, it is not automatically admitted. Section 245D deals with the procedure on receipt of an application under section 245C. Under sub-section (1) thereof, the Commission, after following the prescribed procedure can allow the application to be proc