Just a moment...
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 could entertain a request under section 245D(6) to declare a settlement order void on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, and whether the Revenue could move the Commission for that determination.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter XIX-A makes full and true disclosure by the assessee a foundational requirement for settlement. An order passed under section 245D(4) attains conclusiveness under section 245I, but that finality does not eclipse the express mandate in section 245D(6) that a settlement is void if it is subsequently found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The power to decide whether such fraud or misrepresentation exists belongs to the Commission, and the provision does not require the Commission to act only on its own motion. If the Revenue places material showing fraud or misrepresentation, the Commission can examine that issue without it amounting to review or appellate reappraisal of the earlier settlement order.
Conclusion: The Revenue's application was maintainable and the Commission erred in rejecting it on the footing that it lacked jurisdiction to examine fraud or misrepresentation. The matter was required to be reconsidered afresh.