Held, allowing the appeal the Court held that  the High Court was justified in observing that the order passed by the Settlement Commission was a nullity and could not be said to be an order in the eye of law. The Settlement Commission specifically observed that it was not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper settlement and that even giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and the Department, as laid down in section 245D(4) of the Act was not practicable. However thereafter, the Settlement Commission passed an order to comply with the directions of the High Court to dispose of the application on or before March 31, 2008. If that be so, the High Court in fact ought to have remitted the matter back to the Settlement Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on the merits after following due procedure as required under section 245D(4) of the Act. The judgment of the High Court, the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Officer, and the order passed by the Settlement Commission were  set aside and the matter remanded to the Settlement Commission for decision afresh. The Settlement Commission having been wound up and the matters pending before it being adjudicated by an Interim Board constituted under section 245AA of the Act, the matter was to be remitted to the Interim Board with a request that the matter be taken up expeditiously and a reasoned order passed. It would be open to the Interim Board to call for a fresh report under rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 and thereafter pass the final order on the application, after following due procedure as required under section 245D(4) of the Act. (AY. 1998-99 to 2004-05)