Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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: Whether the Settlement Commission was justified in accepting the settlement applications despite the assessees making further disclosures during the settlement proceedings, and whether such subsequent disclosures showed that the original disclosures were not full and true.
Analysis: The requirement under section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is that the applicant must make a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner in which it was derived. The Court distinguished cases where later disclosures were massive and materially altered the settlement basis from cases where the additional amount was comparatively limited in the overall context of all assessment years under settlement. On the facts, the further disclosure of Rs. 50 lakhs each was viewed against the total disclosures made for multiple years and was not treated as showing that the original applications were false or incomplete. The Commission was therefore not found to have erred in accepting the settlement and proceeding under section 245D(4).
Conclusion: The challenge to the Settlement Commission's order failed; the further disclosures did not invalidate the settlement applications, and the Commission's acceptance of settlement was sustained.