Court denies amendment to petition under Black Money Act; notice remains independent. Chamber Summons disposed.

The Court denied the requested amendment to the petition, emphasizing the independence of the notice under the Black Money Act regarding undisclosed foreign income and assets. The Court clarified that the notice constituted a separate cause of action and was not impacted by the outcome of the petition challenging the Commission's order dismissing the Settlement Application. The Chamber Summons was disposed of, allowing the Petitioner to address the notice separately as the main petition continued.

---

---

Issues:
1. Amendment of the petition by adding averments and prayer clauses.
2. Challenge to the dismissal of Settlement Application by the Commission.
3. Notice issued under the Black Money Act regarding undisclosed foreign income and assets.
4. Request for stay on the notice pending adjudication of the Writ Petition.
5. Argument for and against the proposed amendment.
6. Independence of the notice under the Black Money Act from the Settlement proceedings.
7. Decision on granting or refusing the request for amending the petition.

Analysis:
The Chamber Summons filed sought to amend the Petition by adding averments and prayer clauses, which was strongly opposed by the Respondents' counsel. The Petitioner, an individual, had previously moved a Settlement Application before the Commission for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2014-15, which was dismissed due to lack of full disclosures of income. This dismissal was challenged in the main Petition. Subsequently, the Petitioner received a notice under the Black Money Act regarding undisclosed foreign income and assets, specifically mentioning undisclosed bank accounts in a Swiss Bank. The proposed amendment aimed to bring these developments on record and requested a stay on the notice pending the Writ Petition's adjudication.

The Petitioner's counsel argued that allowing the amendment would prevent prejudice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, emphasizing the challenge to the Commission's order. Conversely, the Respondents' counsel contended that the notice under the Black Money Act was independent, based on separate material, and unrelated to the original cause of action. The Court deliberated on whether to admit the Petition, with or without interim relief, focusing solely on the amendment request at that stage.

The Court noted the Commission's rejection of the Settlement request and emphasized the independence of the notice under the Black Money Act as a fresh proceeding against the Petitioner. It clarified that the outcome of the Petition challenging the Commission's order would not impact the proceedings under the Act. Ultimately, the Court ruled against granting the requested amendment, stating that the notice was an independent cause of action based on its own materials. The Chamber Summons was disposed of, leaving the Petitioner to explore legal options concerning the notice separately as the main Petition progressed.

---