Full and true disclosure in settlement applications governs rejection where seized material shows undisclosed income exceeding declared amounts.

A settlement application under section 245C of the Income-tax Act was rejected because the applicant did not make a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income or explain its derivation convincingly. The Court found that the material in the impounded documents and the Rule 9 report showed a mismatch between the declared disclosure and the income reflected in the seized material, so the statutory precondition for settlement was not met. It also held that no breach of natural justice was shown, because no timely request was made for the third-party statement or for cross-examination, and writ interference with the Settlement Commission's fact-based decision was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting the settlement application for want of full and true disclosure of undisclosed income; (ii) whether refusal to supply the statement of a third party and to permit cross-examination vitiated the order on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): whether the Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting the settlement application for want of full and true disclosure of undisclosed income.

Analysis: An application for settlement under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must contain a full and true disclosure of the undisclosed income and the manner in which it was derived. The Commission examined the Rule 9 report, the material in the impounded documents, and the explanations offered by the assessee regarding alleged land transactions and dealings on behalf of third parties. It found that the claimed nexus with the alleged associates was not established, that the supporting material was insufficient, and that the disclosures made in the application did not match the income reflected in the seized material. The finding that the true undisclosed income was much higher than what was declared led to the conclusion that the statutory precondition for settlement was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The rejection of the settlement application on the ground of absence of full and true disclosure was justified.

Issue (ii): whether refusal to supply the statement of a third party and to permit cross-examination vitiated the order on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed that no timely request was made before the Settlement Commission for a copy of the statement or for cross-examination of the person whose statement was relied upon. In the absence of any such objection during the proceedings, the plea of denial of natural justice was treated as an afterthought. The Court also reiterated that judicial review over orders of the Settlement Commission is narrow and interference is warranted only where the order is contrary to the statute or causes prejudice through a legally sustainable infirmity.

Conclusion: No breach of natural justice was established.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, as the Settlement Commission's finding of insufficient disclosure stood and no procedural illegality was shown warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application can be rejected where the applicant fails to make a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income, and in writ review the Court will not interfere with the Settlement Commission's fact-based decision absent a demonstrated statutory violation or prejudice.

---