2016 (3) TMI 737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the Commission under Section 245D(2C) of the Act has not rendered definite findings with regard to its contention that there has been failure on part of the Respondent Nos.2 to 22 to make a full and true disclosure of (undisclosed) income. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Commission ought to have declared the settlement applications of the Respondent Nos.2 to 22 as 'invalid' rather than allow it to proceed further. 3. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that in an identical fact situation, this Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income-tax Settlement Commission and Others [2014] 365 ITR 87 (Bom) (No.2) (hereinafter calle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plications and hence, the applications filed by them cannot be said to be 'invalid'." Thus, it has dealt with the Revenue's objections and rendered a view that the Applications are valid unlike the decision of this Court in ITSC No.2 (Supra) which had postponed taking a decision. According to him, an identical situation arose before this Court in the Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income tax Settlement Commission and Another [2015] 375 ITR 483 (Bom) (ITSC) wherein this Court refused to interfere with an order passed under Section 245D(2C) of the Act taking a prima-facie view that the Applications are valid by inter-alia observing in paragraph 11 as under: "11..........As regards the issue of true and full disclosure of inco....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sure. As against the above, reliance placed by the Revenue upon the decision of this Court in the ITSC No.2 (Supra) is inapplicable to the present facts. This for the reason that in that case, the Commission had not rendered any findings with regard to the Revenue's contention before it that the Applicant did not make true and full disclosure and thus, ought to be rejected as invalid under Section 245D(2C) of the Act, as it had postponed the considerations of the issue of true and full disclosure made by the Applicant for consideration to a future date. It was in the above context that the Court held that the order of the Commission was nonspeaking order inasmuch as it did not consider or deal with the contention of the Revenue which it....