Full disclosure and tax-payment conditions govern settlement applications; rejection upheld for incomplete disclosure and non-compliance.

Settlement applications under Chapter XIX-A require full and true disclosure of income, candour about material facts, and compliance with the statutory precondition of paying additional tax with interest. On the seized material, the applicants had disclosed only a fraction of unaccounted professional receipts, claimed unsupported expenses, and omitted relevant facts concerning delay in Section 153A compliance and consultancy receipts from another entity. The Settlement Commission was entitled to rely on the Rule 6 report while testing maintainability under Section 245D(2C), and the rejection of the applications was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the settlement applications under Section 245D(2C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that the applicants had not made a full and true disclosure of income and had not satisfied the statutory precondition of payment of additional tax with interest.

Analysis: The applications arose out of search material showing substantial unaccounted professional receipts and related cash collections, investment entries, and other seized documents. The recorded material showed that the applicants offered only a fraction of the unaccounted receipts before the Settlement Commission and claimed large expenses without supporting evidence. The order also noted non-disclosure of material facts relating to the delay in compliance with the notice under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and non-disclosure of consultancy receipts received from another entity. The Court held that settlement proceedings under Chapter XIX-A require complete candour, full disclosure, and compliance with the tax-payment condition, and that the Commission was entitled to act on the report under Rule 6 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 while examining maintainability under Section 245D(2C).

Conclusion: The rejection of the settlement applications was upheld and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---