Special Bench: No need to disclose extra income for each assessment year. Airtech Private Ltd. decision stands. Neptune cases to Additional Bench-I.

The Special Bench held that there is no obligation to disclose additional income or incur additional tax liability for each assessment year mentioned in the application. The decision in Airtech Private Ltd. remains valid despite the amendments in 2007 and 2010. The Neptune group of cases will proceed before Additional Bench-I, Mumbai, under section 245D(1).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether for every year mentioned in the application there should be a disclosure of additional income.
2. Whether there should be additional tax liability for every year mentioned in the application.
3. Whether the decision of the Special Bench in Airtech Private Ltd. remains good law post the amendments in the Finance Acts of 2007 and 2010.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disclosure of Additional Income for Every Year:
The first issue addressed was whether there should be a disclosure of additional income for each assessment year mentioned in the application. The authorized representative argued that the entire process of settlement involves settling a "case," which is defined in section 245A(b) to cover more than one assessment year. Section 245C(1) does not explicitly require declaring additional income for each assessment year. The provisions of section 245C(1A) to (1D) prescribe the manner of calculating additional tax, not the preconditions for admission of an application. The Special Bench in Airtech Private Ltd. held that there is no requirement for additional income disclosure for every year, and this position remains unchanged despite amendments in 2007 and 2010.

2. Additional Tax Liability for Every Year:
The second issue was whether there should be additional tax liability for every year mentioned in the application. The authorized representative contended that as long as the threshold limit of tax as laid down in section 245C is exceeded, there is no requirement for additional tax liability for each year. The department argued that the additional tax should be calculated for each year and then aggregated, implying that there should be additional tax for each year. However, the Special Bench concluded that there is no explicit condition in the law requiring additional tax liability for every year, provided the overall threshold limit is met.

3. Validity of Airtech Private Ltd. Decision Post Amendments:
The third issue was whether the decision in Airtech Private Ltd. remains valid after the amendments in the Finance Acts of 2007 and 2010. The amendments mainly dealt with increasing the ceiling of the threshold limit of additional tax liability and did not affect the primary conditions mentioned in section 245C(1). The Special Bench found that these amendments do not alter the legal position that additional income need not be disclosed for each assessment year, and thus, the decision in Airtech Private Ltd. continues to hold good.

Conclusion:
The Special Bench concluded that there is no requirement to disclose additional income or have additional tax liability for every assessment year mentioned in the application. The decision in Airtech Private Ltd. remains valid and unaffected by the amendments in 2007 and 2010. The applications in the Neptune group of cases will now be considered by the Additional Bench-I, Mumbai, for further proceedings under section 245D(1).

---