Single settlement application across assessment years cannot be split year-wise; interim protection granted against assessment proceedings.

A settlement application covering multiple assessment years is to be treated as a single application, and the disclosure requirement cannot be split year-wise to insist on separate additional income for each year as a condition for entertaining it. The Court treated the contrary year-wise rejection as prima facie incorrect and, pending final hearing, granted interim protection against assessment proceedings for the earlier years. That protection was made conditional on deposit of the amount directed in respect of the later assessment year within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a settlement application covering more than one assessment year, additional income must be separately disclosed for each assessment year; (ii) whether interim protection should be granted against assessment proceedings pending final decision.

Issue (i): Whether, in a settlement application covering more than one assessment year, additional income must be separately disclosed for each assessment year.

Analysis: The binding Special Bench view had held that a settlement application is a single application even if it covers multiple assessment years, and that the Commission cannot split the application year-wise to reject it for some years while entertaining it for others merely because additional income was not separately declared for each year. The later larger bench had also answered the referred question in the negative and reiterated the same position, indicating that separate disclosure of additional income for each assessment year was not mandatory.

Conclusion: The requirement to disclose additional income separately for each assessment year was not accepted, and the rejection of the application for earlier years was prima facie incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether interim protection should be granted against assessment proceedings pending final decision.

Analysis: Pending final hearing, the Court accepted the petitioner's offer to pay the additional amount directed in respect of the later assessment year and, on that basis, restrained the Revenue from proceeding under the normal provisions for the earlier years for the time being. The protection was made conditional on deposit of the directed sum within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: Interim stay and protective relief were granted in favour of the petitioner, subject to deposit of the amount directed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent of obtaining interim protection and a prima facie ruling against year-wise segregation of the settlement application, while the matter was kept pending for final hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application covering multiple assessment years is to be treated as a single application, and the disclosure requirement cannot be split so as to insist on separate additional income for each year as a condition for entertaining the application.

---