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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for settlement under section 245C had to satisfy the amended requirements in force on the date of filing, even though the assessment year related to an earlier period.
Analysis: The settlement mechanism under Chapter XIX-A was treated as a concessionary and machinery provision, not as a vested right of appeal. The amended section 245C, in force when the application was filed, required a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, the manner of derivation, and the additional tax payable, and also imposed a monetary threshold. As the application filed in 1989 did not contain the mandated disclosure and particulars, it failed to satisfy the statutory conditions applicable on the date of filing. The authorities and the single judge were therefore right in holding that the earlier unamended provision could not govern the application.
Conclusion: The amended section 245C applied, and the settlement application was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the settlement application failed, and the writ appeal was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: An application for settlement under section 245C is governed by the procedural and substantive conditions in force on the date of filing, because the provision confers only a conditional statutory concession and not a vested right.