[2025:RJ-JP:35815-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017 1. M/s Gehna, 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar Soni 2. Ms. Shalini Soni W/o Shri Upendra Kumar Soni, aged about 46 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan 3. Shri Upendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Soni, aged about 52 years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan 4. Shri Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Late Shre Bhuli Lal Soni, aged about 78 years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, Circle-Kota Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Senior Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 1. Petitioners are unhappy with the order dated 20th December 2016 passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission whereby, petitioners’ application under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be rejected. 2. Petitioners had filed an application under Section 245D of the Act before the Settlement Commission. That application was held to have abated since the Settlement Commission could not pass a final order before 31st March 2008. Petitioners challenged the automatic abatement by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:35815-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1982/2017] No.8213/2008. The said petition was disposed vide order dated 25th April 2016 whereby, this Court was pleased to direct the Settlement Commission to complete the settlement proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the aforesaid order. The Settlement Commissioner did not complete settlement proceedings within the period of six months and strangely, instead of asking petitioners to get the time extended, passed impugned order dated 20th December 2016 saying that six months period given by the Court has expired and, therefore, the matters are allowed to abate under Section 245HA of the Act. 3. Though we find that the conduct of the Settlement Commission to be unacceptable, we would restrain ourselves from making any observations. 4. Mr. Bapna says that Settlement Commission has been disbanded and now there is an Interim Board constituted under Section 245AA of the Act. 5. In view of above, the impugned order dated 20th December 2016 is quashed and set aside and the Interim Board for settlement constituted under Section 245AA shall dispose the application filed by petitioners. 6. Petition disposed. 7. We clarify we have not made observations on the merits of the application filed by petitioners. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/4