Allowing the appeals against the order of single judge the Court held that, it was too late for the Department to contend that the Settlement Commission should not have settled the cases in respect of the assessment year 2012-13 especially when this was never the ground raised by it either in the report filed under rule 9 of the 1997 Rules or in the subsequent report filed to the reply given by the assessees. a report under rule 9 of the 1997 Rules was filed and based on that, the Department suggested four additions and thereafter, the case was proceeded with and the matter was settled. Therefore, there was no necessity to remand the matter. The interest under section 234B had to be charged on the income settled by the Settlement Commission and in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij lal v. CIT  (2010)) 328 ITR 477 (SC)  and would be chargeable up to the date of order of admission of the application under section 245D(1) of the Act and not up to the date of the order of settlement under section 245D(4) of the Act. (AY. 2012-13)