Settlement Application Validity Under Clause [iv] of S.245A: Madras HC Confirms Deemed Pendency Before March 31, 2021
The Interim Board rejected part of the application due to non-filing of the return by January 31, 2021. A writ petition argued that cases from February 1 to March 31, 2021, should be deemed pending
![Settlement Application Validity Under Clause [iv] of S.245A: Madras HC Confirms Deemed Pendency Before March 31, 2021](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Madras-High-Court-Income-Tax-Settlement-Cases-Section-245A-Income-Tax-Act-TAXSCAN.jpg "Settlement Application Validity Under Clause [iv] of S.245A: Madras HC Confirms Deemed Pendency Before March 31, 2021")
The High Court of Madras confirmed the deemed pendency of a settlement application under Clause [iv] of Section 245A of Income Tax Act, 1961, before March 31, 2021. Anbuchezhian,respondent-assessee,had approached the Interim Board for Settlement with an application covering multiple assessment years. While the board accepted it for some years, it rejected it for others, citing the non-filing...
The High Court of Madras confirmed the deemed pendency of a settlement application under Clause [iv] of Section 245A of Income Tax Act, 1961, before March 31, 2021.
Anbuchezhian,respondent-assessee,had approached the Interim Board for Settlement with an application covering multiple assessment years. While the board accepted it for some years, it rejected it for others, citing the non-filing of the return of income by the stipulated date of January 31, 2021.
Clear all Your Doubts on RCM, TCS, GTA, OIDAR, SEZ, ISD Etc... Click Here
Challenging this rejection, the respondent-assessee filed a writ petition, arguing that the board's conclusion regarding the absence of deemed pendency under Clause [iv] of the Explanation to Section 245A of the Act was incorrect. The argument was supported by previous rulings from the Division Bench, which held that applications related to cases arising between February 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, should be considered pending before the board.
The Single Judge upheld this contention, ruling that the assessee's case aligned with the Division Bench's interpretation. Consequently, the application was deemed pending before the board before the cut-off date. The assessee’s counsel did not contest the applicability of these precedents.
Further, it was acknowledged that the Division Bench's decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court on July 9, 2024, in SLP [C] Diary No.21948/2024. The order of the Single Judge was subsequently complied with, albeit without prejudice to the assessee’s stand.
The two member bench comprising S.S.Sundar (Justice) and C.Saravanan (Justice) dismissed the writ appeal.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
