Ayurvedic Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 321 (Ker.) (HC) Editorial : Decision of single Judge in CIT v. Settlement Commission (2017) 391 ITR 374 (Ker)(HC) affirmed.

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement Commission Accepting declaration without examining material on record-High Court justified in setting aside order of Settlement Commission-Order of single judge affirmed. [S. 245C, 245D(6), Art. 226]

The assessee filed application for settlement under section 245C for the block period April 1, 1990 to April 25, 2000. The applications were admitted and the response of the Commissioner was sought for. The Settlement Commission accepted the application and determined the terms for settlement of issues concerning tax payable by the assessee The Commissioner challenged the order. The single judge set aside the order and remitted the matter to Settlement Commission for consideration and disposal afresh. On further appeal dismissing the appeal the Court held that   the procedure followed by the Settlement Commission in the case on hand in appreciating the advances, cash flow statement, etc., definitely desired consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The single judge had objectively and within the scope of review available under article 226 against the orders made by the Settlement Commission, rightly interdicted and remitted the matter to the Settlement Commission. (AY. 1-4-1990 to 25-4-2000)