AJAY RASTOGI, J. - (1.) SINCE bunch of cross -petitions filed by Assessees as well as by Revenue assailing orders of Settlement Commission in cases of different assessees, involve self -same issue for consideration; hence at request, were finally heard together for its disposal by this common order at admission stage. Primary question for consideration in a bunch of writ petitions preferred by Revenue and cross petitions by different assessees is with regard to applications filed before settlement commission on or before 01/06/2007 and assailing orders of Settlement Commission, on the premise that if impugned order of Settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is held to be legally unsustainable, in such an eventuality, whether matters are to be remitted back to settlement commission to examine afresh in accordance with law or to the assessing authority in view of proceedings initiated under Chapter -XIX -A on being held to be abated in terms of Section 245HA of the Act ?
(2.) EXCEPT on few aspects, as regards orders of settlement commission Under Section 245D(4) of the Act to be referred in later part, Assessees -writ petitioners and respondent - Revenue in cross petitions, both are joint on the issue that the procedure adopted by settlement commission while passing orders impugned is in violation of Section 245D(4) of the Act and without following the mandate of statute; however, Counsel for assessees have tried to convince that once orders of settlement commission are in violation of principle of natural justice as having been passed without due application of mind and appreciation of material on record, matters must be remitted back to settlement commission to decide afresh according to law. However though supported the submissions but Counsel for revenue has also tried to convince that once orders of settlement commission are not legally sustainable as per amendment made under Finance Act, 2007 being enforced w.e.f. 01/06/07, proceedings stand abated in terms of Section 245 -HA as a consequence whereof, matter is required to be remitted to the assessing authority or any other income tax authority before whom proceedings were pending while making application in terms of Section 245 -HA(2) of the Act.
(3.) TO examine the controversy at hand, bare facts necessarily for adjudication, being common in bunch of all the petitions except as regards dates of making applications and assessment years, are being taken note out of CWP -5036/08 (Prakash C. Jalan v. Settlement and Ors.) and so also from CWP -11515/08 (CIT Central v. Ravi Prakash Modi and Anr.). Re. CWP -5036/2008(Prakash C. Jalan v. Settlement Commission) Assessee(Prakash Chand Jalan) filed application before Settlement Commission on 27/09/2001 for A. Yrs 1997 -98 to 2000 -01 Under Section 245(C) containing a full and true disclosure of his income having not been disclosed before the Assessing officer. After fulfillment of statutory requirement under the Act upon receipt of application, Settlement Commission summoned a report from Commissioner (IT) as provided U/r 9 of Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (Rules, 1997) -on the basis of material contained therein (supra), allowed the application to be proceeded with, which ordinarily is called to be motion hearing; and after application being admitted, examined the assessees and so also commissioner (IT) who are parties to the litigation; and after inquiry being made Under Section 245D(3), settlement commission was supposed to examine the records -report of Commissioner (IT) Under Section 245D(1) and the report, if any, received Under Section 245D(3) and after affording opportunity of hearing to parties (assessee and revenue) either in person or through representative authorized on their behalf.;