HC sets aside order rejecting third settlement under section 245C, remands for fresh consideration of income findings

Jayaraman Dinakaran Versus The Interim Board for Settlement-II, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Chennai

Jayaraman Dinakaran Versus The Interim Board for Settlement-II, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, Chennai - TMI ISSUES:

1. Whether an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be rejected for non-disclosure of full and true income when the petitioner files repetitive settlement applications without disclosing additional income.

2. Whether the Settlement Commission is required to consider and give due weight to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding non-receipt of alleged income before rejecting a settlement application.

3. Whether the rejection order by the Settlement Commission must contain valid reasons when it is not satisfied with the additional income offered by the applicant.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

1. The Settlement Commission rightly rejected the third settlement application on the ground that the petitioner had not made "full and true disclosure" of income, as the additional income disclosed remained substantially the same as in earlier rejected applications, and the petitioner's motive appeared to be avoidance of prosecution proceedings.

2. The Settlement Commission erred by rejecting the application without considering the Adjudicating Authority's order, which concluded that no amount was received by the petitioner from the alleged transaction; thus, the Settlement Commission failed to apply its mind to material facts.

3. The Court held that if the Settlement Board is not satisfied with the additional income offered, it must "point out valid reasons" for non-acceptance; failure to do so renders the rejection order liable to be set aside.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework under Section 245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that an application for settlement must contain "full and true disclosure" of income not previously disclosed to the Assessing Officer.

The Court emphasized the principle that the Settlement Commission must consider all relevant material, including findings of other authorities such as the Adjudicating Authority, before rejecting a settlement application.

The judgment reflects a doctrinal insistence on procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making by the Settlement Commission, requiring it to explicitly state valid reasons when rejecting applications for non-disclosure.

The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration to ensure compliance with these legal standards, directing the Settlement Commission to take into account the Adjudicating Authority's findings and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner.