The assessees were subjected to search under section 132 prior to 31-3-2021; however, notices under sections 153A / 153C were issued after 31-3-2021. Applications for settlement were filed before the Interim Board for Settlement on or before 30-9-2021, which were rejected relying on CBDT Order dated 28-9-2021 on the ground that no “case” was pending as on 31-3-2021. The single judge allowed the writ petitions holding that pendency had to be reckoned with reference to the date of search. On appeal by the Revenue, the High Court held that in the absence of any challenge to the statutory definition of “case” under section 245A(b), there was no scope to artificially construe search proceedings as constituting pendency; however, section 245C mandates only that a “live and un-adjudicated” case must be pending on the date of filing of the application. The Court further held that the CBDT, while exercising power under section 119(2)(b), could not introduce substantive eligibility restrictions or deny the benefit of extended time to a class of assessees by prescribing an additional cut-off date. Consequently, the clause in the CBDT Order requiring pendency of a case as on 31-3-2021 was held ultra vires the Act. While setting aside the single judge’s finding equating search with pendency, the Court upheld the direction to consider settlement applications on merits where notices under sections 153A / 153C were issued between 31-3-2021 and 30-9-2021.