TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1091
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CHIEF JUSTICE Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. 3.1. The facts briefly stated and germane for adjudication of this appeal are that the writ petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewels and assessed to Income Tax in Pan No.AAACK2564Q under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Investigation Wing, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai. 3.2. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was conducted in the premises on 21.04.2016. During the course of search proceedings, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 69B of the Act is beyond the scope of settlement proceedings. Hence, the present writ appeal. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the mandate of law as contained in Section 245C(1) of the Act requires the assessee to make full and true disclosure of its income which has been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income tax payable on such income and such other particulars described under the law to become eligible. 4.2. He would submit that the present case involves dispute only with regard to the claim of settlement of Rs. 80 Crores as undisclosed income. Referring to the settlement application dated 16.10.2018, learned cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the writ petitioner was considered in detail and the authority was of the view that the assessee failed to substantiate with materials and evidences with regard to its claim in respect of Rs. 80 Crores offered during AY 2017-18 as excess stock. He would submit that the burden was on the applicant to explain the query raised by the department and differentiate the said sum of Rs. 80 Crores as stock in trade/investment made. The exercise undertaken by the authority cannot be said to be against the provisions of law. He would submit that upon going through the materials on record the authority arrived at a conclusion that there was no true and full disclosure. Therefore, the rejection is proper. 6. We have taken into consideration s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to the assessee, the stock in trade is directly related to Rs. 80 Crores which in turn was result of inflation of refinery loss, which perhaps the assessee was not correct in claiming as such, and this appears to be only a device not to disclose an income which the assessee otherwise had accumulated. 11. The aforesaid aspect, in our view, was not taken into consideration in a proper manner by the competent authority. Since the rejection of the application for settlement not only results in imposition of interest, penalty, but also in prosecution, we are of the view that the competent authority was required to closely examine and scrutinize the manner in which income was derived, as was stated by the assessee in his application date....