Income Tax Settlement Commission directs disposal of application, Regular Bench resolves settlement, petitioner's challenge expedited with added parties.

The Special Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission directed the application of M/s. Neptune Group to be disposed of by the Regular Bench after considering the disclosure of additional income and liability to pay income tax for multiple assessment years. The Regular Bench subsequently disposed of the Settlement Application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner's petition, challenging the constitution of the Special Bench, was entertained and expedited for hearing along with another similar case. The petitioner was granted permission to amend the petition by adding interveners as party respondents, with the case scheduled for final hearing and disposal on an agreed date.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Income Tax Settlement Commission on disclosure of additional income for multiple assessment years and liability to pay income tax.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission regarding the disclosure of additional income for multiple assessment years and the liability to pay income tax. The Special Bench of the Commission was constituted under Section 245BA(5A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main question before the Special Bench was whether an applicant filing an application covering more than one assessment year must disclose additional income for each year and whether such additional income must result in the liability to pay income tax for each year. The impugned order directed the application of M/s. Neptune Group to be disposed of by the Regular Bench under Section 245D(1) of the Act after assessing these two issues.

After the Special Bench's order, the Regular Bench of the Commission disposed of the Settlement Application filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner's counsel stated that the Revenue was aware of the order passed under Section 245D(4) of the Act but was instructed to press this petition. The petition was entertained as it raised jurisdictional issues concerning the Special Bench's constitution by the chairperson of the Commission. The petition raised similar issues as in another case already admitted, and the hearing was expedited, leading to the decision to tag this petition along with the other for final hearing.

The petitioner's counsel sought permission to amend the petition by adding interveners who appeared before the Special Bench as party respondents. The request was granted, with a deadline of four weeks for the amendment. The petition, along with the other case, was scheduled for final hearing and disposal on a specified date agreed upon by the parties, allowing for a comprehensive review of the issues raised regarding the disclosure of additional income and the liability to pay income tax for multiple assessment years.

---