Composite settlement applications need not separately disclose income year-wise, and interim protection against assessment proceedings was granted.

A composite settlement application covering multiple assessment years was held, on a prima facie basis, not to require separate disclosure of additional taxable income for each year where larger Special Bench views had already taken that position. In light of that binding Commission precedent, the Bombay HC granted interim protection, restrained the Assessing Officer from issuing notices or starting assessment proceedings under the normal provisions for the relevant years, and recorded the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate if such proceedings later became necessary. The relief operated only pending final hearing of the writ petition challenging rejection of the settlement application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection against assessment proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order rejecting the settlement application for some assessment years.

Analysis: The petition challenged the Settlement Commission's refusal to entertain the settlement application for certain years on the ground that additional income had not been separately disclosed for each assessment year. The order noted that a larger Special Bench had already taken the view that, in a composite settlement application covering multiple assessment years, there was no requirement to disclose additional taxable income separately for each year, and that the later seven-member Special Bench had reiterated that position. On that basis, the impugned rejection was prima facie considered inconsistent with the binding view of the Commission's larger bench. The Court therefore granted interim protection and restrained the Assessing Officer from issuing notices and initiating proceedings under the normal provisions for the relevant assessment years, while also recording the petitioner's undertaking to cooperate if assessment proceedings ultimately became necessary.

Conclusion: Interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner and coercive assessment proceedings for the relevant years were stayed pending final hearing.

---