TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for settlement under section 245C(1) required full and true disclosure of income not already disclosed before the Assessing Officer, and could be rejected where concealment had already been detected or was likely to be established; (ii) Whether the High Court could interfere under article 226 with the Settlement Commission's summary rejection under section 245D(1).
Issue (i): Whether an application for settlement under section 245C(1) required full and true disclosure of income not already disclosed before the Assessing Officer, and could be rejected where concealment had already been detected or was likely to be established.
Analysis: Section 245C(1) permits settlement only when the applicant makes a full and true disclosure of income not earlier disclosed before the Assessing Officer, together with the manner in which such income was derived and the additional tax payable. The statutory definition of "case" and the proviso to section 245C(1) make these requirements mandatory, not optional. The disclosure cannot be half-hearted or made after the revenue has substantially detected the concealment. The scheme of Chapter XIX-A, as explained with reference to the Supreme Court authorities, is not meant for assessees who approach the Commission after the department has already gathered material showing concealment or fraud.
Conclusion: The application for settlement was validly liable to be rejected where the disclosure was not of the kind contemplated by section 245C(1), and the conclusion was against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under article 226 with the Settlement Commission's summary rejection under section 245D(1).
Analysis: The power under section 245D(1) is a quasi-judicial power to be exercised on the basis of the Commissioner's report, the nature and circumstances of the case, and the complexity of the investigation involved. The Court held that writ jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of the merits of the assessment controversy or substitution of the Court's own view for that of the Settlement Commission. Interference is confined to cases of lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, perversity, arbitrariness, or absence of nexus between reasons and decision. On the facts, the Commission acted within the parameters of the statute in summarily rejecting the petition.
Conclusion: The summary rejection under section 245D(1) did not warrant interference under article 226, and the conclusion was against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the Settlement Commission's order rejecting admission of the settlement application was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application under section 245C must disclose income not previously disclosed before the Assessing Officer in full and truthfully, and the High Court will not interfere with a summary rejection under section 245D(1) unless the decision is jurisdictionally flawed, perverse, or otherwise amenable to judicial review on settled principles.
TaxTMI 
