HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
PCIT-1 Surat v M.D. Industries Pvt.Ltd.
SLP(C) Diary27612/2025
Official reasoned order dated 2025-07-11; no neutral citation printed ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: sections 245D(4) and 245HA
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Pankaj Mithal · K.V. Viswanathan
Assessment years: No assessment year identified in this order
01 · Facts of the case
Revenue challenged the Gujarat High Court decision of 2 April 2024 in SCA 18791/2021. The Court was told that the settlement application remained undecided and an order under section 245D(4) was yet to be passed. The Tribunal had condoned delay, set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order and restored the first appeal. The short order does not identify an assessment year.
Source: Official order: PDF pages 1–2, caption and substantive order
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
On these facts, the Court rejected Revenue’s position that the assessee must give up the right to contest the assessment on merits if settlement is rejected without terms. It stated that such rejection would attract section 245HA and revive appellate proceedings. The Tribunal’s delay condonation and restoration of the first appeal were justified in the peculiar facts. The order should not be treated as an exhaustive account of every statutory abatement event.
Source: Official order: PDF pages 1–2, section 245HA and restoration passages
03 · Judicial decision
Delay was condoned and Revenue’s SLP dismissed. The Court expressly clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) must keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance until disposal of the settlement application under the 1961 Act. Pending applications were disposed of.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee on preservation of appellate rights and restoration, subject to mandatory abeyance. No assessment reduction, exemption or immediate parallel adjudication was granted.
Source: Official order: PDF page 2, restoration, dismissal and abeyance
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Preserve the appeal record and track the settlement application’s actual disposition. Seek action consistent with the abeyance direction and verify whether the statutory condition for revival has occurred. Do not treat restoration as a merits victory or permission to pursue simultaneous adjudication. The separate April and July orders involve different dockets and High Court proceedings despite repeating the same reasoning.
Source: Official order: Editorial analysis based on PDF pages 1–2
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Both pages of the official record of proceedings and unnumbered reasoned order fully read.
- No neutral citation or numbered paragraphs appear. The stated hearing date is used, not the later digital-signature date.
- Distinct from the 17 April 2025 M.D. Industries order: different Supreme Court diary number, bench and High Court case. Same substantive reasoning, but not an alternate PDF of the same order.
Statutory scope
Apply the statutory version governing the underlying proceedings. No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-18. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Related reviewed notes
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.