https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347431 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. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2017 17:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347431 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347431