Wp/18627/2008 Of The Commr. Of Income Tax, Hyd v. The Income Tax Settlement Commission And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] TUESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI] WRIT PETITI ONN[O: ][18627 OF ][2008] Between:The Commissioner [of ][lncome ][Tax' ][Aayakar Bhavan' ][Basheerbagh']Hyderabad. ...pETtIoNER AND l.ThelncomeTaxSettlementCommission,AdditionalBench,640,AnnaSalai,Nandanam, [Chennai.]Nandanam, [Chennai.] 2. Ivl.V.R. & Son [Techno Builders Private Limited' 9-19-44' ][CBI\rl ][Compound']-. Pradesh -. Pradesh Visakhapatnam, Andhra ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHighCourtmaybeorder. Or.,f o-""d to issue a writ Of [Mandamus ][or ][any ][other ][appropriate ][writ ]-or i;;;"il l; ir," nuL." [or ]" [writ ][dectaring the order of the serflement commission](lT&WT).AdditionalBench,ChennaiinS'A.No.AP/HD51/06.07/18/lTdatedlS-5;;d;l'r-lighi;lii.grr, [improper, ][arbitrary, unjust, ][viotative ][of ][the ][pnnciples ][of]natural [justice ][and ][to set aside ][the ][same'] I-A. NO:1 OF 2OO8(WPMP. [N][O:24238 ] [2008)] PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedin the affidavit [filed ][in ][support ][of the peiition, ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]G [order ][of ][the ][setttement commission ][(tr ][& ][wr), ][Additional ][Ben.ch,];r;p;nd a;;;"i in S.A.No.AP/HD51/06-07/18/lr [dated ][18-3-2008' ][pending ][disposal ][of]the writ [petition.] Counsel for [the Petitioner: ] [J.V' ] [(SC ] [TAX)]Counsel for [the Respondent ][No'1 ][: ][- ][- - ][-]Corn=et for the [Respondent ][No'2: ] [M' NAGA ] The Court made [the ][following: ] THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEAL BHIIYANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI \VRIT PETITION No.18627 of 2OOB 98DEB: eer [the ][Hon'ble ][the Chief ][Justice ][LIIJ\I ][tthultan)] Heard Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing [Counsel,]Income Tax Department appearing for the [petitioner ][and]-Mr. M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for respondent [No.2 ]ASSCSSCC. 2. This writ petition has been liled by the Commissionerol lncome Tax (Central), Bashecrbagh, [H1'derabad,]assailing the legality and validity of the order [dated]18.O3.2008 passed by the Income Tax SettlementCommission, Additional Bench, Chennai [(briefly, ]['the]Settlement Commission' hereafter), in SettlementApplication No.APlHDS 1 / 06-07 I / lT. :1. Respondent No.2 is an assessce under the [lncome]Tax Act, 196 1 (briefly, the Act' hereinafter) and is engagedin the business of civil construction. It is stated that business acti\-ities of respondent No.2 is spread over thethen State of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa.then State of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa. 4. On 16.12.2004, a search and seizure operation wascarried out in the business and residential premises olrespondent No.2 under Section 132 of the Act. That apart,survey was also conducted under Section l33A ol thc Act.Pursuant to notice under Section 1534. of the Act,respondent No.2 filed its returns of income for theassessmcnt years 1999-2000 to 2005-2006 as under: 5. During pendency of the assessment proceedinglollorving the search and seizure, respondent No.2 filed anapplication before the Settlement Commission underSection 245C of the Act. Respondent No.2 disclosed beforethe Settlement Commission additional income over andabove 'a,hich u'as declared under Section l53A of the Act inthe returns of income as under: 4. On 16.12.2004, a search and seizure operation wascarried out in the business and residential premises olrespondent No.2 under Section 132 of the Act. That apart,survey was also conducted under Section l33A ol thc Act.Pursuant to notice under Section 1534. of the Act,respondent No.2 filed its returns of income for theassessmcnt years 1999-2000 to 2005-2006 as under: 5. During pendency of the assessment proceedinglollorving the search and seizure, respondent No.2 filed anapplication before the Settlement Commission underSection 245C of the Act. Respondent No.2 disclosed beforethe Settlement Commission additional income over andabove 'a,hich u'as declared under Section l53A of the Act inthe returns of income as under: 6. In response to notice [issued ][by. ][the ][Settiement]Commission, petitioner [submitted ][objection ][under ][Rule ][6]of thc Income Tax [Settlement Commission ][(Proceedings)]Rules, 1986 [(briefly, ][the ][Rules' ][hereinafter)' ][In ][the ][said]report, petitioner [contended ][that ][application ][liled ][by]for [settlement ][was ][not ][maintainable ][and]respondent [No.2 ]should be rejected. [However, Settlement ][Commission]admitted the application [of ][respondent ][No'2, ]"r'hereafterhad to submit [a ][report under ][Rule ][9 ][of ][the ][Rules]pctitioner clisclosing therein [as ]to [how ][concealment of taxable itlcome]\\.as detected by the revenue. [It ][was ][mentioned ][therein]that no new facts [were disclosed ][by respondent ][No'2 ][in ][the]application. In all, [contention ][of ][the ][petitioner ]"vas [that]conditions for settlement [in ][terms ][of ][Section 245C ][of ][the]Act \\'ere absent and [therefore, ][the ][application ][of] respondent No.2 should be rejected. However, br_ therejected. However, br_ theimpugned order dated 18.03.2008, respondent No.1 i.e.,Settlement Commission accepted the additional incomeSettlement Commission accepted the additional incomeoffered by respondent No.2 at Rs.44,96,300.O0.Consequently, petitioner u,as directed to issue demandnotice to respondent No.2 to pay the income tax as per theorder dated 18.03.2008 passed under Section 24SD(41 ofnotice to respondent No.2 to pay the income tax as per theorder dated 18.03.2008 passed under Section 24SD(41 ofthe Act. As a consequence of the settlement, SettlementCommission granted immunitl to respondent No.2 fromprosecution as well as from imposition of penalty under theAct.prosecution as well as from imposition of penalty under theAct. 7. Assaiiing the aioresaici order dated 1g.03.2008, thepresent writ petition has been fi1ed. By order dated29.OB.2OOB, a Division Bench ol this Court had admittedthe writ petition lor hczrring, but declined to grant any stay. 8. Since sta-v u,as declined, the effect of the order dated18.O3.2OO8 passed b,r, rhe Settlement Commission hadbeen given effect to. Therefore, a view can be taken that\ the writ petition has become infructuous. Nonetheless, asMr. J.V.Prasad, learncd Standing Counsel has argued on the merit [of ][the order, ][we are of ][the ][view ][that ][a ][decision ][on]me rit [u,ould ][be ][approPriate.] 9. Mr. J.V.Prasad, [learned Standing Counsel ][for ][Income]Ta-x Department [submits ][that ][Settlement ][Commission]mechanically [accepted ][the ][application ][of ][respondent ][No'2]ancibrushedasidetheobjectionraisedbythepetitionerurnder [Rule ][6 ][of ][the ][Rules ][as ][well ][as ][the report ][submitted]underRulegoftheRules'Accordingtohim'therewasnoadditional [disclosure ][of ][concealed ][income ][of ][respondent]No.2 in the [appiication ][filed ][for ][settlement' ][Whatever]income [r'r'as ][detected ][in ][the ][course ][of the ][search ][and]seizure [rvas ][mentioned ][in ][the ][application ][for ][settlement']'l'trcrclbrc. StrtLioment [Commission ][was ][not justilied ][in]accepting [the ][plea ][of ][settiement ][of ][respondent ][No'2'] 9. Mr. J.V.Prasad, [learned Standing Counsel ][for ][Income]Ta-x Department [submits ][that ][Settlement ][Commission]mechanically [accepted ][the ][application ][of ][respondent ][No'2]ancibrushedasidetheobjectionraisedbythepetitionerurnder [Rule ][6 ][of ][the ][Rules ][as ][well ][as ][the report ][submitted]underRulegoftheRules'Accordingtohim'therewasnoadditional [disclosure ][of ][concealed ][income ][of ][respondent]No.2 in the [appiication ][filed ][for ][settlement' ][Whatever]income [r'r'as ][detected ][in ][the ][course ][of the ][search ][and]seizure [rvas ][mentioned ][in ][the ][application ][for ][settlement']'l'trcrclbrc. StrtLioment [Commission ][was ][not justilied ][in]accepting [the ][plea ][of ][settiement ][of ][respondent ][No'2'] 10. On [the ][other ][hand' ][Mr' ][M'Naga Deepak' ][learned]cor,rnsel [for ][respondent ][No'2 ][submits ][that ][same ][set ][of]arguments [\\rere ][advanced ][before the ][Settlement]Commission [rvhich were ][rejected' ][Scope ][of ][interference]u'iLh an [order of ][Settlement Commission ][in ][judicial ][revierv]procct:clings [is ][very ][limited' ][In ][such ][a ][proceeding' Court] would only look into as to whether there is an1. proceduralviolation b,. the Settlement Commissionorthere is anyviolation of the principles of natural justice. In support ofhis contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of theSupreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathir. fls,therefoi:e, submitsthat the writ petition should bedismissed. 11. Submissions made b_v learned counsei for the partieshave received the due consideration of the Court. 12. Before clealing t-ithtl-re order passed by theSettlement Commission. u cma_r, briefl1, advert to theschern- nf -^++r^---ui ',ELiicrrjclti as pr.o\ icled under the nct. __. 72-1 - . ch o,-,t^, L.'aplcr ".,i,\_A Lrv ^oi.the Acr comprising Sections 24SA to245M deals with settlement of cases. Section 245A(f) of theAct defines "settiement Commission,, to mean the IncomeTax Settlement Commission constituted under Section2458 ofthe Acr. 12.2. As per sub-section (1) of Section 2458 of the Act, theCentrai Government shall constitute a Commission to becalled the Income Tax Settlement Commission forseltlement of cases under Chapter XIX-A. We may mentionthat as per the proviso, Income Tax SettlementCommission so constituted had ceased to operate witheffect from OI.O2.2O21. However, we have been informedat the Bar that an Interim Settiement Board is now inoperation to ensure that there is no vacuum in theinterregnum. Composition of the Settlement Commission isdealt n,ith in sub,sections (2) and (3) of Section 2458 of theAr:t. 12.3. J r-rri scl ictio ltal po\\'ers of Settlement Commission aredelineated ir-r Section 2458A of the Act. 12.4. Section 245C of the Act provides for filing ofappiication lor settlement of cases. As per sub-section (1),an assessec nlet\', at an-y stage of a case relating to him,mal<e an ;rpplication in such form and in such manner asmat' be prescribed and containing a full and trueappiication lor settlement of cases. As per sub-section (1),an assessec nlet\', at an-y stage of a case relating to him,mal<e an ;rpplication in such form and in such manner asmat' be prescribed and containing a full and truedisclosure of his income w,hich has not been disclosed 12.3. J r-rri scl ictio ltal po\\'ers of Settlement Commission aredelineated ir-r Section 2458A of the Act. 12.4. Section 245C of the Act provides for filing ofappiication lor settlement of cases. As per sub-section (1),an assessec nlet\', at an-y stage of a case relating to him,mal<e an ;rpplication in such form and in such manner asmat' be prescribed and containing a full and trueappiication lor settlement of cases. As per sub-section (1),an assessec nlet\', at an-y stage of a case relating to him,mal<e an ;rpplication in such form and in such manner asmat' be prescribed and containing a full and truedisclosure of his income w,hich has not been disclosed before the assessing officer. the manner in t'hich suchincome has been derived, the additional amount ol incometax payable on such income and such other particulars asmay be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to havethe case settled and any such application shall be disposedof in the manner provided in the said section. Thus, t'hatsub-section (1) of Section 245C of the Act contcmplatcs isthat there must be a lull and true disclosure bv theassessee not oniy of his undisclosed income br-rt themanner of acquiring the same if he seel<s settlement. Thefull ald true disclosure should not onlv be confined to theincome which had not becn discloscd belore theassessment officer, but shor-rld also indicatc thc manncr in--.1^: ^t^ wrllLli ^.-^1- SLrLrt .:-^^^_^ LIlLtilltL r-^llrd(r-l [- ][! ][: ][i i ][,- ]-- [.. ][l]amount of income tax payable on such incorne . As per theproviso, no such applicatioll shali bc madc urrless theadditional amount of income ta-\ pa-\'ablc on the incorredisclosed in the settlement application cxcccds rupees fiftylakhs. 12.5. The procedure on receipt of application under Section245C of rhe Act is dealr wirh in Section 24SD of the Act.245C of rhe Act is dealr wirh in Section 24SD of the Act.Sub-section (i) says that on receipt of such an application,the Settlement Commission shall issue notice to t].ethe Settlement Commission shall issue notice to t].eapplicant within seven days to explain as to why he hadmade the application, '*,hereafter the Settlementmade the application, '*,hereafter the SettlementCommission is required to pass an order in writing withinfourteen days either rejecting the application or allowingthe application to proceed fur-ther. In the event no order ispassed, the proviso to sub-section (1) contemplates thatthe application shali be deemed to have been allowed bybythe Settlement Commission to be proceeded with. As persub-section (28), the Settlement Commission shall call fora report from the Principal Commissioner or Commissionera report from the Principal Commissioner or Commissionerwho shall therealter submit a report within thirty days.Further, the Sct[len-rent Commission may also call for therecords from the Prir-rcipal Commissioner or Commissionerif Settlement Commission is ol the opinion that any furtherenquiry or investigatior-r in the matter is necessar5r.Further, the Sct[len-rent Commission may also call for therecords from the Prir-rcipal Commissioner or Commissionerif Settlement Commission is ol the opinion that any furtherenquiry or investigatior-r in the matter is necessar5r. 12.5. Sub-section (4) of Section 245D [of ][the Act is ][relevant.]It says that after examination of the record and [report ][of]the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner [and ][after]giving al opportunity to the applicant as well as to [the]Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of [being ][heard]either in person or through an authorised [representative]and after examining such further evidence [as ][ma-v- ][be]necessary, the Settlement Commission may [pass ][an ][order]on the settlement application. Sub-section [(6) ][s21'5 ][1621]every order passed under sub-section [(4) shzrll ]1;rovidc [lor]the terms of settlement including any demand [b-v ][u'av ][of]tax, penalty or interest, the manner in [u'hich ][ant ][suin ][due]under the settlement shall be [paid and ]all [other mattcrs ][to]make the settiement effective. ii ciar iiics iii.rt [ii it ][is]subsequently found by the Settlement [Commission ][that ][the]settlement was obtained by fraud or [misrepresctl ][tation ][oi]facts, the settlement would be [deemed ][to ][bt: ][r'oirl. ][I'os ][er ][of]rectification of any mistake apparent [from ][thc ][record ][is]available to the Settlement Commission [in ][terms ][ol ][sub-]section (68). That apart, Settlement Commissiorr [has- ][tl're]power to reopen concluded proceedings. 12.7. Finally, as per Section 245H ol the Act, SettlementCommission has the power to grant immunity fromprosecution and penalty in the event of allowing anapplication for settlement filed under Section 24SC of theAct. 12.8. Section 245-l of the Act says that every order ofsettlement passed under sub-section (4) of Section 24SD ofthe Act shall be conclusive as to the matters stated thereinsettlement passed under sub-section (4) of Section 24SD ofthe Act shall be conclusive as to the matters stated thereinand no matter covered by such order sha-li save asotherwise provided in Chapter XIX-A be reopened in *yproceeding under the Act or under any other law for thetime being in force.time being in force. 12.9. This is the overail scheme of settlement under theAct.Act. 13. Supreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji (supra) posed thequestion as to the scope of an appeal before the SupremeCourt under Article i36 of the Constitution of India againstan order of the Settlement Commission. The issue wasn hether all the questions ol lact anci lau. as has been decided by the Settlement Commission [\\'ere ][open ][to]judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia. Supreme Court examined the scheme of [settlcment]as provided in Chapter XIX-A of the Act as [under:] 12.9. This is the overail scheme of settlement under theAct.Act. 13. Supreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji (supra) posed thequestion as to the scope of an appeal before the SupremeCourt under Article i36 of the Constitution of India againstan order of the Settlement Commission. The issue wasn hether all the questions ol lact anci lau. as has been decided by the Settlement Commission [\\'ere ][open ][to]judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia. Supreme Court examined the scheme of [settlcment]as provided in Chapter XIX-A of the Act as [under:] 15. ... .,. ... The provisions of Chaptcr [arc.]however, qualitatively different ald more elaboratc [thalt]the said provisions in the 1922 Act. The [proccedings]under this chapter commence by an application [made]by the assessee as contemplated by Section [245-(l]Section 245-D prescribes the [procedure ][to ][be ][follorved]by the commission on receipt of al [application ][urrdcr]Section 245-C. Sub-section [(4) ]says: ["after examination]of the records and the report of thc commissioncrreceived under sub-section [(1), ]and the [report, ][if ][:tnr'. of]the commissioner received under sub-scctior.r {3). [irncl]after giving an opportunity to the applicant [atl(l ][lr) ][tl\!]commissioner to be heard, either in [person ][or ][tirrottgir ][a]representative duly authorised in this behalf' [anrl ][aftcr]cxamining such further evidence as mav bc lll;t<'r'rlbefore it or obtained by it, the settlement [comtnissiort]may, in accordalce with the [provisions ]of [this ][r\r:t. ][pass]such order as it thinks fit on the matters covcred [bv ][thc]application and aly other matter relating [to the ][casc not]covered by the application, but [referred ][to ][in ][thc ][rcl)ort]of the commissioner under sub-section [( I ]) [or ][sLrlr]section (3)." Section 245-E empowers the Cotnnlissiott [trr]re-open the completed proceedings in appropriilt(' [cits('s.]r,r'hile Section 245-F confers all the powers o[ art ltrcomcTax authority upon the Commission. Section [2'15 ][H]empourers thc Commission to grant immtltritl- [frtlrn]pcnalty and prosecution, with or without conditiotts [irr] cases where it is satisfred that the assessee has made afull disclosure of his income and its sources. Underfull disclosure of his income and its sources. UnderSection 245-HA, ttre Commission can send back thematter to assessing oflicer, where it finds that theapplicant is not cooperating with it. Section 245declares that every order of settlemcnt passed underSub-section (4) of Section 245(D) shall be conclusive asto the matters stated therein and no matter covered bySub-section (4) of Section 245(D) shall be conclusive asto the matters stated therein and no matter covered bysuch order shall, save as othenvise provided in ChapterXIX-A, be re-opened in any proceeding under the Act orunder any other law for the time being in force. SectionXIX-A, be re-opened in any proceeding under the Act orunder any other law for the time being in force. Section245-L declares that ary proceedings under chapter XIX-A before the settlement commission shall be dcemed tobe a judicial proceeding within thc meaning of SectionsA before the settlement commission shall be dcemed tobe a judicial proceeding within thc meaning of Sections193 and 228 and, for the purposes of Section 196 of theIndian Penal Code.Indian Penal Code. 14. Thereafter, Supreme Court held rhar despite thefinality clause contained in Secrion 245-l of the Act, thesame would not bar and cannot bar jurisdiction of the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 orArticle 136 of the Constitution of India. Horvever, havingregard to the nature of settlement contemplated underChapter XIX-A, Supreme Court helcl that the scope ofenquiry under Article 226 ol tl-re Constitution of Indiawould be very limited - confined to procedural irregularity 14. Thereafter, Supreme Court held rhar despite thefinality clause contained in Secrion 245-l of the Act, thesame would not bar and cannot bar jurisdiction of the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 orArticle 136 of the Constitution of India. Horvever, havingregard to the nature of settlement contemplated underChapter XIX-A, Supreme Court helcl that the scope ofenquiry under Article 226 ol tl-re Constitution of Indiawould be very limited - confined to procedural irregularity or violation of the principles of natural justice (audi aLterantpartem\, chailenge on the ground of bias, fraud and maliccSupreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Sri RantDurga Prasad v. Settlement Commission2, whereirr iti.,,,as heid that judicial review is concerned with the legalit-r'of procedure follorved arrd not with the validity of the orclcr:judicial review is concerned not with the decision, but s iththe decision making process. It was held as follows: 16. It is true that the frnality clause containcd rnSection 245-l does not and cannot bar the [jurisdiction ]ofthc High Court under Article 226 or tJ:e [jurisdiction ]ofthis court under Article 32 or under Article 136, as thecasc may be. But that does not mean that thejurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directlyin thrs court is any different than what it would bc if tl.rczrsses,see had first approached the High Court undcrr\rricie 226 arrci iiren come up in appeai t<.r titir uuu, iundcr Articlc I36. A party does not and cannot gairt atrvadvantagc by approaching this Court directly underi\rticie i.36, instead of approaching the High Courtundcr Article 226. This is not a limitation inherent inArticle 136; it is a limitation which this court imposcson itself having regard to the nature of the functior.rperformed by the Commission and keeping in view thcprinciplcs oi judicial review. May be, there is also somcforce in rvhat Dr. Gauri Shankar says viz., that the ordcrof commission is in the nature of a package deal and ' ( 1(}89) 176 t1'll I (r9 ISC) that it may not be possible, ordinarily speaking, todissect its order and that the assessee should not bepermitted to accept what is favourable to him and rejectwhat is not. According to learned counsel, theCommission is not even required or obligated to pass areasoned order. Be that as it may, the fact remains thatit is open to the Commission to accept an arnount of taxby way of settlement and to prescribe the manner inwhich the said arnount shall be paid. It may condonethe defaults and lapses on the part of the assessce andmay waive interest, penalties or prosecution, where itthinks appropriate. Indeed, it would be difficult topredicate the reasons artd considerations ri,hich inclucethe commission to make a particular order, unless ofcourse the commission itself chooses to givc reasons forits order. Even if it gives reasons in a giten case, thescope of inquiry in the appea.l remains the same asindicated above irz., whether it is contrarv to any of theprovisions of the Act. In this context, it is rcle!.ant ronote that the principle of natural justice (au./i aherentporlentl has been incorporated ur Scction245-D itself. The sole overall limit:rtloll u pon thcCommission thus appears to be that it shou id act inaccordalrce with the provisions of the Acl. 1lrc. sco1te ofenquiry, whether by High Court under Article 2-26 or bvthis Court under Article 136 is also the same , s'he(hcrthe order of the Commission is contrarv to :rnl'. o[ thcprovisions of the Act ald if so, has ir prejudiced thepetitioner/ appellant apart from ground of biars, fraud &malice which, of course, constitute a separate andindependent category. Reference in this bchalf may behad to the decision of this Court in sri nant Durga prasadv. Settlement Commission (MANU/ SC/O4 )9 / 1989 : Il989l [l76lTR169(SCIJ, ][which ][too ][was an ][appeal against]the orders of ihe Settlement Commission. SabyasachiMukharji, J-, speaking for the Bench comprising himselfand S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case thisCourt is ["concerned ]with the legality of procedurefollowed and not with the validity of the order." Thelearned Judge added 'judicial review is concerned notwith the decision but with ttre decision-making process."Reliance was placed upon the decision of the House ofLords in Chief Constable of the n.w. Police v. Evans ([1982]1 W.L.R. I 155). Thus, the appellate power under Article136 was cquated to power of judicial review, where theappeal is directeri against the orders' of the SettlementCommissiotr. For aii the above reasons, we are of theopinion thal thc onlv ground upon which this Court caninterfere in these appea.ls is that order of theCommission is contrary to the provisions of the Act andthat such contravention has prejudiced the appellant.The main controversv in these appeals relates to theinterprct;ltion of thc settlemcnt deeds - though it is true,somc contcrltions of law are also raised. The commissionhas interprcted the trust deeds in a particular manner,Evcn i[ thc interpretation placed by t]re commission thesaid dceds is not correct. it would not be a ground forinterfcrencc in thcsc appeals, since a wronginterpretation of a ciecd of trust cannot be said to bc aviolation of thc provisions of the Income Tax Act. It iscqually clear that the intcrprctation placed upon thesaid deeds bv the Commission does not bind theauthorities under the Act in proceedings relating toother assessment I'cars. 15. Keeping the above in mind, let us now [examine ][the]impugned order dated 18.03.2008 passed by [the]Settlement Commission under Section 245D(41 of the [Act]Alter reference to the factual matrix and after [hearing ][the]revenlle as well as the assessee, [Settlement ][Commission]lou nd that thcre was no basis for estimation [and]quantification of undisclosed income by the depa-rtment.Scttlement Commission found that a sum [ol]Iis.2,00,00,000.00 comprising of Rs.50,00,000.00 [oflered]in the return filed under Section 153A, Rs.1,13,70,000.00in the settlement application as weli as a further sum [of]Rs.36,30,000.O0 offered in the course of hearing [u'ould]nrccr t he r:nds of justice. The same was accepted and [the]issurc s'as settled. 16. We do not find aly procedural or substantile [error ][or]infrrrnitf in the approach of the Settlement CornmissionSettlement Commission had followed the laid [dou-n]procedure contemplated under Chapter XIX A ol the Act .rsu,ell as under the Rules. Principles of natural [juslice ][ri ]ereciul,r' complied rvith. There is no allegation of anr' frauci or \ misrepresentation. In the absence thereof, we are alraidwe ca-nnot reopen a concluded settlement in a proceedingwe ca-nnot reopen a concluded settlement in a proceedingunder Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India like alappellate authority. 17. In the circumstances, \\'e are of the vietv that there isno merit in the writ petition. 18. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K. RARASSTSTANT//TRUE SEFICERJ J AL o ne [a ][i ][r ][c ][o ][pv ]le'*T. (For llfl :l" lF." ['fito'H:',T"Ii ANDsn"rui'clf j?.lli5,".g,11;,:'*,*t'$::,:;TUKARAMJTI , , '.,1, Bffi BB B BRI '&'$p,(Ff,{?fJ}:8Y.."1fr), 3. 11 L.R. 11 L.R. [[Copies]][[of lndia, ][Ministry ]][[Ministry ]][[of ][Law, ]][[Law, ]][Justice ][and ] Advocate toPUCI 17. In the circumstances, \\'e are of the vietv that there isno merit in the writ petition. 18. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shallstand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. K. RARASSTSTANT//TRUE SEFICERJ J AL o ne [a ][i ][r ][c ][o ][pv ]le'*T. (For llfl :l" lF." ['fito'H:',T"Ii ANDsn"rui'clf j?.lli5,".g,11;,:'*,*t'$::,:;TUKARAMJTI , , '.,1, Bffi BB B BRI '&'$p,(Ff,{?fJ}:8Y.."1fr), 3. 11 L.R. 11 L.R. [[Copies]][[of lndia, ][Ministry ]][[Ministry ]][[of ][Law, ]][[Law, ]][Justice ][and ] Advocate toPUCI 3. 11 L.R. 11 L.R. [[Copies]]4 The Under [Secretary, ][Union ][[of lndia, ][Ministry ]][[Ministry ]][[of ][Law, ]][[Law, ]][Justice ][and ][Company]. +[3't3;];uBif]'u"nun' [Advocates Association Library' ][High ][court]Buidings, [HYderabao']6. Two [CD CoPies]BNGJP -G4 The Under [Secretary, ][Union ][[of lndia, ][Ministry ]][[Ministry ]][[of ][Law, ]][[Law, ]][Justice ][and ][Company]. +[3't3;];uBif]'u"nun' [Advocates Association Library' ][High ][court]Buidings, [HYderabao']6. Two [CD CoPies]BNGJP -G HIGH COURT DATED:0310112023 y.9'I ATE,?z$8ac?B r)lt*ORDER or\WP.No.18627 ot 2008 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTSra)(q& GJ-