ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Karan G.Sanghani for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Ketan Shah for the respondent. 2. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the common order dated 01.02.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.37 to 43 of 2020 arising out of the ITA No.497 of 2020 to 503 of 2020 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 to Assessment Year 2005-06 in case of the respondent assessee passed by the Income Appellate Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: 3.1. In this case, survey action u/s.133A of the Act was carried out in premises of Shri Pankaj Danawala CA and in the premises of MD Industries by the DDIT (Inv) II, Surat on 11.03.2005. During the survey Shri Pankaj Danawala CA, was found to have created large number of bogus capital build up cases in the name of different persons by adopting various modus operandi. Further such funds were transferred to the various assessees of MD group. Shri Pankaj Danawala in his statement recorded during the survey accepted this fact and Shri Kirit Patel, the director of MD Industries Pvt. Ltd. vide his statement recorded on oath u/s.131 of the Act on 20.05.2005 had further confirmed and owned up the bank accounts and benamidars. 3.2 The respondent assessee filed application for settlement on 09.03.2006 before the Settlement Commission. The Assessing Officer meanwhile passed an assessment order Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2006. 3.3. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeal) who dismissed the appeals without entering into the merits on account of the pendency of the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission as per the provision of Section 245F(2) of the Act. 3.4. The Settlement Commission admitted the twenty applications of the M.D.Group under Section 245(H)(A) vide order dated 20.02.2008. The Settlement Commission by order dated 31.03.2008 disposed of all the settlement applications filed by the petitioner as abated on account of the amendment in the Act. The order of the Settlement Commission was challenged before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 28.04.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court by common order dated 07.08.2009 involving 9 out of 20 applicants remanded the matter back to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. 3.5. The order of the Settlement Commission was challenged before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 28.04.2008. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court by common order dated 07.08.2009 involving 9 out of 20 applicants remanded the matter back to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. 3.5. Thereafter the report under Rule 9 of the Settlement Commissioner Rules was submitted by the CIT(Appeal) before the Settlement Commission and the assessee raised objections to the said report vide submissions dated 10.09.2018 which was forwarded by the Settlement Commission to the Principal CIT(1), Surat. The Principal CIT(1), Surat, vide letter dated 18.10.2018 submitted comments on the submission of the assessee and thereafter several hearing were conducted before the Settlement Commission in the proceeding under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the CIT(Appeal) with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. The ITAT by order dated 06.12.2019 condoned the delay of 4379 days and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeal) for fresh consideration on merits. 3.6. The petitioner preferred Misc.Application nos.37 to 43 of 2020 before the Tribunal for recall of the aforesaid order dated 06.12.2019, on the ground that there was a mistake apparent on record as the applications were pending before the Settlement Commission, the Tribunal could not have proceeded with the appeals filed by the assessee as the jurisdiction over the matter would lie before the Settlement Commission as per Section 245F(2) of the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. It was further pointed out to the Tribunal that as the CIT(Appeal) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of jurisdiction and the disposal was only for statistical purpose it was not an appealable order. It was also pointed out to the Tribunal that there is mistake apparent on record as the Tribunal has relied upon the order passed in ITA No.1635 to 1638 and 1655 of 2016 and the facts of those cases are not identical to that of the respondent assessee as in those cases, the applications were not admitted by the Settlement Commission whereas in the case of the respondent assessee applications were admitted by the Settlement Commission. 3.7. The Tribunal by impugned common order dated 02.01.2021 dismissed all the Miscellaneous applications. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 4. 3.7. The Tribunal by impugned common order dated 02.01.2021 dismissed all the Miscellaneous applications. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Sanghani for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed a mistake apparent on record by not applying provision of Section 245(F)(2) of the Act as the matters of the respondent assessee are pending before the Settlement Commission and therefore the Tribunal could not have remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeal). It was submitted that the Tribunal also could not have followed the decision in case of ITA Nos.1635 to 1638 and 1655 in case of the group concerned, to condone the delay of more than 4000 days. 4.1. It was also submitted by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Sanghani that there is a mistake apparent on record of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal has remanded the matter back without deciding the case on merits, the Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal as there was no jurisdiction. 5. We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the petitioner. The Tribunal in the impugned order has categorically held that the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench on the similar facts to condone the delay. 6. The Tribunal has further held with regard to the objection raised by the petitioner that the Tribunal could not have followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench on merits which was not the fact as noted by the Tribunal in para nos.20 and 21 of the impugned order which reads as under: “20. And for third objection, we have noted that the ld. AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that while adjudication the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal relied on the decision in ITA No.1635 to 1638 & 1655/AHD/2016, for limited purpose for condoning the delay. And for third objection, we have noted that the ld. AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that while adjudication the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal relied on the decision in ITA No.1635 to 1638 & 1655/AHD/2016, for limited purpose for condoning the delay. We find merit in the submissions of ld.AR for the assessee that reliance on the order ITA No.1635 to 1638 & 1655/AHD/2016 was only for condoning the delay, We noted that the revenue has not raised grievances about the condonation of delay in admitting the appeal We have further seen that the cases of assessee are similar on lacts as In case of Kirit M. Patel bearing no.1639, 1821 and 1822/AHD/2016 and 678/AHD/2015 and other group cases which were also restored by the Tribunal to the file of LD. CIT(A), hence, the Tribunal in the present case has made no mistake, much less apparent mistake while following the order of the Tribunal in group cases. The revenue has not filed application to recall the order in Kirit M. Patel bearing no.1639, 1821 and 1822/AHD/2016 and 678/AHD/2015 dated 29.05.2018. Thus, the grievance of the revenue as raised in objection no. (iii) is also misplaced. 21. At the time of making submission the Id. DR for the revenue made reliance on the decision of Cochin Tribunal in JC Augustine (supra), wherein it was held that if the matter abates ITSC, the erstwhile jurisdiction of the CIT(A) gets revived, thus, the assessee has to move a restoration petition before Id. CIT(A). We have seen that the Tribunal while restoring the appeals of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised in the appeals on merit. So there is no harm to the interest of revenue as there is no adjudication on merit by Tribunal. In the result the application filed by the revenue is dismissed.” 7. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues raised in the appeals on merit. So there is no harm to the interest of revenue as there is no adjudication on merit by Tribunal. In the result the application filed by the revenue is dismissed.” 7. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner did not raise the ground with regard to the jurisdiction over the matter of respondent assessee lies with the Income Tax Settlement Commission by virtue of Section 245(F)(2) of the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal as well as the CIT(Appeal) has only dismissed the appeal for statistical purpose and therefore the order is not an appealable order as the grounds are raised for the first time in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal wherein after following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal condoned the delay and as the CIT(Appeal) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and dismissed the appeals of the respondent-assessee as not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on the ground that the matters have abated, the Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeal) in light of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of the Kirit M.Patel in ITA No.1639, 1821 and 1822 of 2016 dated 29.05.2018. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, these petitions being without any merit are accordingly dismissed. Notices are discharged.