T.V.K.NATARAJACHANDRAN, A.M. : - (1.) THESE are three sets of appeals by the assessee one against the quantum and the other against order under S. 185 pertaining to asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. THESE appeals arise out of similar and combined orders of the CIT(A), Ahmedabad dt. 17th Jan., 1989 wherein he has dismissed the appeals by the assessee for these years on the ground that the settlement petitions filed by the assessee were accepted by the Settlement Commission vide their Order No. 10/CC/149/83-IT dt. 26th Dec., 1988. The assessee is in appeal against the impugned orders of the CIT(A) on several grounds namely the learned CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in view of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 245F of the IT Act, 1961. The impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction is bad in law and therefore deserves to be cancelled and the status quo ante ordered to be restored. Further common ground taken by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that just because the appellants income-tax settlement application for the assessment years have been admitted it was not open to him to dismiss the appellants appeals against the assessment orders passed by the ITO under S. 144 of the IT Act, 1961. For this reason as well the impugned orders deserved to be cancelled and the status quo ante be restored. The assessee is a registered firm which carries on business of trading in metals, casts iron scrap, pig iron, chemicals and minerals. Consequent to the search operation conducted in the business premises of the assessee both at Bombay and at Ahmedabad the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 came to be completed ex parte under S. 144 of the IT Act, 1961 for non-compliance with the several statutory notices. The status of the assessee has been taken as unregistered firm (URF) by rejecting registration claimed by the assessee for these years.
(2.) The assessee appealed against the orders of the Assessing Officer both on quantum and on registration. Finding that the petitions filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission were accepted by the Settlement Commission as per the Order No. 10/CC/149/83-IT dt. 26th Dec., 1988 the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals only on that ground and without going into the merits of the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Hence, the appeals by the assessee before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the common grounds taken by the assessee in these appeals. According to him, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) would jeopardise the interest of the assessee in case the Settlement Commission thought if fit to send back the case to the Assessing Officer for non-co-operation of the assessee with the Settlement Commission as contemplated in S. 245HA the assessee would have no remedy to seek as the appeals filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) stood dismissed. He further pointed out that inasmuch as the ITO has already passed the assessment orders and orders refusing registration he would only issue demand notice and enforce the collection. In that case the assessees has to seek remedy by an appeal before the CIT(A) but there would be legal hurdles in admission of appeal. Therefore, he urged that the right course for the CIT(A) would have been to keep the appeals pending till the final disposal of the case before the Settlement Commission and thereafter dismiss the appeal as infructuous. Even though the Settlement Commission has accepted the applications still the spectre of sending back the case to the ITO is haunting the assessee and therefore alternative remedy would be lost by the orders of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeals based only on the admission of the applications for settlement. Therefore, he prayed that the orders of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the matter should be restored to him for keeping in abeyance in the interest of justice.
(3.) THE learned Dartmental Representative on the other hand supported the orders of the CIT(A). According to him, the Settlement Commission would be passing orders under sub-s. (4) of S. 245D r/w S. 245HA(1).;