Limited Article 226 review of Settlement Commission estimates bars reappreciation of evidence absent patent error.

The High Court's Article 226 jurisdiction over a Settlement Commission order under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act is limited, and it will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own estimation for the Commission's factual determination. Where the Commission bases its income and tax assessment on the materials on record, interference is justified only if a patent mistake appears on the face of the record. On the facts noted, the Commission's estimate of net profit at 0.75% of turnover was founded on the search material, the absence of audited regular accounts, and incomplete seized records, so writ interference was unwarranted and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Settlement Commission's order estimating the petitioner's income and determining tax liability.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against the Settlement Commission's estimation of net profit at 0.75% of turnover after taking note of the search, the absence of audited regular accounts, the incomplete nature of the seized material for all years under consideration, and the inability of the parties to reconcile their respective positions. The writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited in matters arising under Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A settlement order may be interfered with only where there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and not merely because another view on the merits is possible. Where the Commission has reached its conclusion on the basis of materials on record, the High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the Commission on questions of fact or estimation.

Conclusion: The interference sought with the Settlement Commission's order was not warranted, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings arising from a settlement order, the High Court under Article 226 will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for the Settlement Commission's factual determination unless a patent mistake appears on the face of the record.

---