By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
New Page 1
27 Settlement of cases : Abatement of
proceedings : S. 245D(2D) and S. 245HA of Income-tax Act, 1961 : Constitutional
validity : By way of interim relief, Setlement Commission directed not to
consider the application of the assessee having abated u/s.245HA for want of
compliance with S. 245D(2D) as amended by the Finance Act, 2007.
[Sunita Textiles Ltd v. CIT & Ors., 216 CTR 74 (Bom.)]
The constitutional validity of S. 245D(2D) and S. 245HA as
amended by the Finance Act, 2007 was
challenged by filing writ petition. The Bombay High
Court admitted the writ petition and granted interim relief directing the
Settlement Commission not to consider the settlement application filed by the
petitioner having abated u/s.245HA for want of compliance with S. 245D(2D) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Madras High Court upheld
the decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“(i) There is no dispute that the earlier CIT(A)’s
order has become final and also the AO passed the consequent orders in
giving effect to the said CIT(A)’s order. There was no further appeals by
the Revenue. Though the said CIT(A)’s order is erroneous in view of the
Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Venkateshwara Hatcheries
(P) Ltd., 237 ITR 174 (SC), the same has not been set aside by the
process known to law.
(ii) The Tribunal is correct in holding that the
Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment u/s.147.
Unless and until the said order is set aside by the process known to law,
the said order is valid in law, as well as it binds on the lower
authorities. Hence, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to circumvent
the earlier order passed by the CIT(A) which had become final. Under such
circumstances, the Assessing Officer should not reopen the assessment and
seek to adjudicate on the issue which was already adjudicated by the
Appellate authority.
(iii) The Tribunal correctly decided the matter and the
reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence,
and there is no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so
as to warrant interference.”
