Wp/24147/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Income Tax Settlement

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central – 1,108, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai 600 034. .. Petitioner in all W.Ps. Prayer in all W.Ps.: Writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ ofCertiorari, calling for the records on the file of the firstrespondnet in TN/CN.51/2010-11/11/IT, TN/CN.51/2010-11/10/ITand TN/CN.51/2010-11/8/IT dated 28.03.2012 and quash the sameas illegal beyond jurisdiction and authority of the firstrespondent . By this common order, all the three Writ petitions arehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/being disposed. 2. These present writ petitions have been filed by thepetitioner Commissioner of the Income Tax against the impugnedorders all dated 28.3.2012 passed by the first respondent,Income Tax Settlement Commission ( hereinafter referred to asthe “Settlement Commission”). 3. By the impugned orders, the first respondent IncomeTax Settlement Commission has accepted the applications filedby the 2nd respondent/applicants the respective secondrespondent in these writ petitions under Section 245C videimpugned orders dated 28.03.2012 under Section 245D(4) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 4. These orders are sought to be assailed by theCommissioner of Income Tax, the petitioner herein primarily onthe ground that there was no true and full disclosure in theapplication filed by the second respondents in the respectivewrit petitions, inasmuch as the additional amount of incomedeclared in the returns filed pursuant to notice issued underSection 153A by them was far lesser than the amount of incomeultimately arrived by the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commissionin the impugned order. 5. It is further stated that the amount the additionalincome offered for settling the case was not different fromthe amount that was of in the revised returns filed on20.12.2010 pursuant to notice dated 41.2010 issued underSection 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was no furtheradditionaldisclosureofincomeoverandaboveRs.50,00,000/- . 6. It is further submitted that there there was a hugevariance between the additional amount declared in theapplications filed under Section 245C and the amount arrivedby the first respondent for settling the cases of therespective 2nd respondent/applicant (2[nd] respondent in therespective writ petitions). 7. It is therefore submitted that the first respondentsettlement Commission ought to have dismissed the respectiveapplications in absence of true and full disclosure at thetime when reports were filed under Section 245D(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is further submitted that in any event, the firstrespondent Settlement Commission ought not to have grantedimmunity from prosecution and from payment of penalty to thesecond respondents in the respective writ petitions in absenceof true and full disclosure of additional income under Section245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. It isfurther submitted that the fact that the firstrespondent Settlement Commission took upon itself the task ofhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/re-assessment to hand over an order of settlement of the cases under Section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also makesit clear that there was no true and full disclosure ofadditional income by the respective 2nd respondent/applicantsnamely the second respondents in the respective writ petitionsbefore the first respondent Settlement Commission. 11. Defending the impugned order, learned counsel for thesecond respondents in the respective writ petitions submittedthat the first respondent Settlement Commission is required topass an order under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 within 14 days of the forwarding of the application filedunder Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by eitherallowing or rejecting the application at that stage. under Section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 also makesit clear that there was no true and full disclosure ofadditional income by the respective 2nd respondent/applicantsnamely the second respondents in the respective writ petitionsbefore the first respondent Settlement Commission. 11. Defending the impugned order, learned counsel for thesecond respondents in the respective writ petitions submittedthat the first respondent Settlement Commission is required topass an order under Section 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 within 14 days of the forwarding of the application filedunder Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by eitherallowing or rejecting the application at that stage. 12. It is submitted that after the application wereadmitted, a report was called for from The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax as to whether there was adequatedisclosure by respective 2nd respondent/applicant regardingadditional income offered for tax, the tax and interestpayable thereon. 13. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Income Taxhad filed a report under Section 245D(2B) givingviews/objections regarding the adequacy of the additionalincome disclosed by the 2nd respondent/applicant, payment ofadditional tax thereon and interest, etcetera and regardingcompliance of the proviso to Section 245 C of the Income TaxAct, 1961. It is submitted that there was no proceduralirregularity. 14. It is submitted that after receipt of the said reporthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/filed the Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 245D (2B) and after recording satisfaction to proceed thesettlement application, the Settlement Commission passed orderunder Section 245 D(2C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961by allowingthe application filed by the 2nd respondent/applicant. 15. It is submitted that only after order under Section245D (2C) was passed by the first respondent SettlementCommission, a comprehensive report under Rule 9 of the IncomeTad Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 was called for from theCommissioner of Income Tax. 16. It is only after considering the submissions of theCommissioner of Income tax and the respective 2ndrespondent/applicant ( 2[nd] respondent in the respective writpetitions) the first respondent Settlement Commission passedthe impugned order under Section 245 D (4) of the Income TaxAct, 1961. 17. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission’s order had attained finality in terms of Section245I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore the writ petitionfiled by the petitioner Commissioner of Income Tax was liableto be dismissed. 18. It is submitted that the power of review underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invokedunless there was any material irregularity in the procedurefollowed by the Commission. 19. It is submitted that the scope of judicial review isvery limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.It is further submitted that this Court is really notconcerned with the ultimate decision of the first respondentSettlement Commission. It is only concerned with the decision-making process. 20. Unless the petitioner establishes that the orderpassed by the Settlement Commission was vitiated on account offraud, mis-representation or the suffers from arbitrariness orthere was a material irregularity in the decision makingprocess, there is no scope for interference. 21. On merits it is submitted that after submitting thereport under Section 245(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itis not open for the petitioner to challenge the validity ofthe final order passed in the first respondent SettlementCommission. 22. It is further submitted that it would be incorrectto even submit that there was no true and full disclosure bythe respective 2nd respondent/applicant (second respondent inthe respective writ petitions) on the fact and circumstanceshttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/of the each of the cases. 21. On merits it is submitted that after submitting thereport under Section 245(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, itis not open for the petitioner to challenge the validity ofthe final order passed in the first respondent SettlementCommission. 22. It is further submitted that it would be incorrectto even submit that there was no true and full disclosure bythe respective 2nd respondent/applicant (second respondent inthe respective writ petitions) on the fact and circumstanceshttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/of the each of the cases. 23. In this connection the decision of the court in thefollowing cases was drawn:- i.Sri Budhia Swain & Others vs. Gopinath Deband Ors. 1996) 4 SCC 396 (SC) ii.Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibers India Ltd.,(1996)5 SCC 550; iii.A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak & Other, AIR1988 SC 1531. 24. On merits it is submitted that a search underSection 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted between16.02.2008 and 03.12.2008 in the business premises of therespective 2nd respondent/applicants/second respondents namelyAccent Pharama, Maral Labs and Madras Pharmaceuticals whichare partnership concerns having few common partners. 25. All the three concerns were issued with notice dated4.1.2010 under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Underthese circumstances, all the three concerns approached theSettlement Commission. 26. Eventually, all the applications filed for settlingthe case under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wereallowed by the first respondent Settlement Commission by itsseparate orders dated 28.3.2012. 27. It is submitted that as far as facts are concerned,the finding of facts by the first respondent SettlementCommission and final. 28. It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent is theultimate fact finding authority and therefore, it cannot bedisturbed. In this connection attention was drawn to thefollowing cases of the Courts:- i) R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad and FatechandNursing Das vs. Settlement Commission(IT and WT) and another (1989) 176 ITR 169(SC) ii) Saurasthra Cement Ltd vs. Commissionerof Customs, (2013) 22 GSTR 460 (Guj.) iii) Shriyans Prasad Jain vs. Income TaxOfficer & Others, (1993) 204 ITR 616 (SC) iv) Vishwa Nath Gupta vs. PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax and Another(2017) 395 IYTR 165 (Del.) (HC) iv)Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Income TaxSettlement Commission and another, (2017)390 ITR 306 (Guj) v) Southern Herbals Ltd vs. SettlementCommission (ITLWT) and another, (2003) 261ITR 681 (Kar.) vi) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Union of India, through its Secretary, Income tax Settlement Commission and another(2019) 419 ITR 419 (Pat.) vii) C.A.Abraham and Others vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax and Others,(2002) 255 ITR 540 (Mad.) 29. I have considered the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the petitioner, the Commissioner of IncomeTax and the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, the successful 2ndrespondent/applicant in all writ petitions before the 1[st]respondent Settlement Commission. 30. The larger issue in these writ petitions is whetherthere was a full and true disclosure by the respective 2ndrespondent/applicant (2[nd] respondent in the respective writpetitions) before the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission inproceedings initiated by them under chapter XIX A Of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in the peculiar facts and circumstancesof the cases. 31. The supplementary issue to be decided is whetherthe 2nd respondent/applicant (2[nd] respondent in the respectivewrit petitions) had satisfied the requirements of such clause(ii) to first proviso to Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act,1961? 30. The larger issue in these writ petitions is whetherthere was a full and true disclosure by the respective 2ndrespondent/applicant (2[nd] respondent in the respective writpetitions) before the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission inproceedings initiated by them under chapter XIX A Of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in the peculiar facts and circumstancesof the cases. 31. The supplementary issue to be decided is whetherthe 2nd respondent/applicant (2[nd] respondent in the respectivewrit petitions) had satisfied the requirements of such clause(ii) to first proviso to Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act,1961? 32. The 2nd respondent-2nd respondent/applicant inW.P.No.24278 of 2013 (M/s.Accent Pharma) and the 2[nd]respondent-2nd respondent/applicant in W.P.No.24179 of 2013(The Madras Pharmaceuticals) and W.P.No.24279 of 2013 hadearlier filed application for settling the dispute underSection 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961on 12.11.2010. Theseapplications were dismissed by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission vide these separate orders dated 16.11.2010. 33. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission found thatthe applications were vague and unreasonable and cannot bedecided in the manner in which these 2nd respondent/applicant(2[nd] respondent in the respective writ petitions) wanted thecases to be settled. 34. These applications were filed even before revisedreturns were filed by them pursuant to notice dated 4.1. 2010were issued under Section 153 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.These 2nd respondent/applicants later filed revised returns on01.12.2016 and only on 16.12.2010 along with the 2[nd]applications under Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 35. The earlier applications were dismissed by ordersdated 16.11.2010 in the case of these 2nd respondent/applicant(2[nd]respondent in W.P.No.24179 of 2013( The MadrasPharmaceuticals and W.P.No.24278 of 2013 (The Accent Pharma) &W.P.No.24147 of 2013 (Marlal labs) does not operate as a barunder Section 245 K of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from filing 2[nd]https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/application. 36. These 2nd respondent/applicants therefore filedfresh application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 01.12.201 and 16.12.2020. On the same day, they alsofiled their revised returns in response to notices dated4.1.2010 issued under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961. 37. As far as the 2[nd] respondent in W.P.No.24147of 2013is concerned, (M/s.Marlal Labs) both revised returns underSection 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the applicationto settle the case under Chapter XIX A of the Income Tax Act,1961 were filed on the same date i.e. 2.12.2010. 38. I shall refer to the income declared and theadditional income determined by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission in the impugned orders to determine as to whetherthe 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission was justified insettling the case of the respective 2nd respondent/applicantswho are the 2[nd] respondent in the respective Writ Petitions. 39. To get proper perspective, the income declared thatwas originally declared at the time of filing of originalreturn and the amount offered as additional income theapplication filed under Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the amount ultimately determined by the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission are tabulated in this order:- M/s.Maral Lab : ( W.P.No. 24147 of 2013) 40. I shall 1[st] deal with the case of M/s.Maral Lab inW.P.No. 24147 of 2013. The case deals the Assessment Years2003 -2004 to 2008-2009. The following Table will explain theincome that was originally disclosed in the returns filedunder Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the additionalincome offered by M/s.Maral Lab in its application and theadditional income arrived by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission in the impugned order. M/s.Maral Lab : ( W.P.No. 24147 of 2013) 40. I shall 1[st] deal with the case of M/s.Maral Lab inW.P.No. 24147 of 2013. The case deals the Assessment Years2003 -2004 to 2008-2009. The following Table will explain theincome that was originally disclosed in the returns filedunder Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the additionalincome offered by M/s.Maral Lab in its application and theadditional income arrived by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission in the impugned order. AssesIncomeAdditionalTotalAdditionalTotal-returnedIncomeIncomeincome(Rs.)smentoriginallofferedfileddeterminedYearyunder16.12.2020bytheSectionSettlement(Rs.)245 D ofCommissionI.T.Act(Rs.)(Rs.)(Rs.)2003-12,37,1401,05,55,461,17,92,6050,51,162/- 1,68,43,7604/-0/- 0/- 2/ 2004-17,79,9501,53,91,121,71,71,0772,83,083/- 2,44,54,1505/- 0/ 0/- 3/- 2005-31,87,9701,68,78,92 2,00,66,894,70,940/- 2,95,37,8306ov.in/hcservices//- 0/- 90/ 0/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 41. The total income for the block assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 was Rs 7,06,23,537/- in the original returns.After a search was completed under Section 132 of Income TaxAct, 1961, the 2[nd] respondent /applicant was issued with anotice dated 4.1.2010 under Section 153A of the Income TaxAct, 1961. The last date for filing returns expired on3.2.2010 under the aforesaid provision. 42. The 2nd respondent/applicant M/s.Maral Labs [the 2[nd]respondent in W.P.No.24147 of 2013] filed a belated return on20.12.2010. On the same day, the 2nd respondent/applicantalso filed an application under Section 245C of the Income TaxAct, 1961before the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission. 43. In the said application, the additional amount ofincome offered by the 2[nd] respondent - 2[nd] respondent/applicantfor these block assessment years was Rs.6,85,21,882/-. In therevised returns, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered a totalincome of Rs.13,91,45,419/-consisting of the aforesaidadditional amount of Rs.6,85,21,882/- and Rs.7,06,23,537/-declared at the time of filing original. 44. Pursuant to reports filed by the petitioner’s office,the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission arrived at the totalincome of the 2[nd] respondent as Rs.19,46,08,786/- by addinganother amount of Rs.5,54,63,342/-. 45. The above amount of Rs.19,46,08,786/- finallydetermined by the 1[st ]respondent over and above the amountRs.13,91,45,419/- declared by the 2[nd] respondent/applicantnamed in the application filed under Section 245 C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commissiontook upon itself the task of recasting the income by loweringhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the income for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Similarly, for some of the Assessment Years in these blockassessment years, there have been some increase in the incomefrom the amount declared by the 2nd respondent/applicant.46. However, what is evident is that as against a totalincomeofRs.13,91,45,419/-declaredbythe2ndrespondent/applicant in the application filed under Section245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, consisting of additionalincome of Rs. 6,85,21,882/- the additional income determinedby the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes to Rs.5,54,63,342/-.This amount is almost 81% of the additional income declaredunder Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 47. From a reading of the above table it is evident thatthere a sea of difference between the amount disclosed in theapplication filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the amount finally determined by the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission. 48. Thus, what emerges is that there was no true andfull disclosure of additional income in the applications filedunder Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the 2[nd]respondent in W.P.No.24147 of 2013. 47. From a reading of the above table it is evident thatthere a sea of difference between the amount disclosed in theapplication filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the amount finally determined by the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission. 48. Thus, what emerges is that there was no true andfull disclosure of additional income in the applications filedunder Section 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the 2[nd]respondent in W.P.No.24147 of 2013. 49. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission has not onlytaken upon the task of an adjudicating authority but alsofailed to note that the 2nd respondent/applicant had not madea true and full disclosure of the income which had not beendisclosed before the assessing officer. 50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 35 in AjmeraHousing Corporation and another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(2010) 8 SCC 739 held as under :- “ 35. It is plain from the language of sub-Section (4) of Section 245-D of the Actthat the jurisdiction of the SettlementCommission to pass such orders as it maythink fit is confined to the matterscovered by the application and it canextend only to such matters which arereferred to in the report of theCommissioner under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (3) of the said Section. A “fulland true” disclosure of income, which hadnot been previously disclosed by theassessee, being a precondition for a validapplication under Section 245-C(1) of theAct, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does notcontemplate revision of the income sohttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/disclosed in the application against Item 11 of the form. Moreover, if an assessee ispermitted to revise his disclosure, inessence, he would be making a freshapplication in relation to the same case bywithdrawing the earlier application. Inthis regard, Section 245-C(3) of the Actwhich prohibits the withdrawal of anapplication once made under sub-Section (1)of the said Section is instructive inasmuchas it manifests that an assessee cannot bepermitted to resile from his stand at anystage during the proceedings. Therefore, byrevising the application, the 2ndrespondent/applicant would be achievingsomething indirectly which he cannototherwise achieve directly and in theprocess rendering the provision of sub-Section (3) of Section 245-C of the Actotiose and meaningless. In our opinion, thescheme of said Chapter is clear and admitsno ambiguity.” 51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to interfere withthe order of the High Court as is evident from a reading ofPara 39 of the said Judgment which is reproduced below . “ 39. Before addressing the other issues, atthe outset, we record our disapproval withthe view of the High Court that it would notbe proper to set aside the proceedingsbefore the Settlement Commission even thoughit was convinced that the assessee had notmade full and true disclosure of theirincome while making application underSection 245-C of the Act. As stated above,in its earlier order dated 28-7-2000 whiledeclaring the order dated 17-11-1994 as abinitio void and setting aside the orderdated 29-1-1999, the High Court had remittedthe case to the Settlement Commission todecide the entire matter afresh, includingthe question of maintainability of theapplication under Section 245-C(1) of theAct. The said order of the High Court wasput in issue before this Court and was setaside vide order dated 11-7-2006 and thecase was remanded back to the High Court forfresh consideration. Nevertheless, allpoints raised by the parties, including theplea of the Revenue that the applicationfiled by the assessee before the SettlementCommission was not maintainable as theassessee had not made a full and truedisclosure of their undisclosed income werehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/kept open. The High Court addressed itself on the said issue and found that theassessee had not made a full and truedisclosure of their income while making theapplication under Section 245-C(1) of theAct, yet did not find it proper to set asidethe proceedings on that ground. Havingrecorded the said adverse finding on thevery basic requirement of a validapplication under Section 245-C(1) of theAct, the High Court's opinion that it wouldnot be proper to set aside the proceedingsis clearly erroneous. The High Court appearsto have not appreciated the object and scopeof the scheme of settlement under ChapterXIX-A of the Act.” 52. There is considerable difference in the additionalamount of income as disclosed in the application filed underSection 245 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the additionalamount determined by the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission.It shows that the amount determined was double the amount thatwas declared in the application filed by the said 2ndrespondent/applicants. Therefore, W.P.No.24147 of 2013deserves to be allowed. Madras Pharmaceuticals :W.P.No.24179 of 2013. 53. This case pertains to Black Assessment year 2003-2004 to 2008-2009. The following table explains the incomethat was originally disclosed in the returns filed underSection 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additional incomeoffered under Section 245 C and the amount of incomedetermined by the first respondent Settlement Commission inthe impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/2nd respondent/applicant was issued with a noticedated 4.1.2010 under Section 153 A of the Income Tax Act,1961. The last date for filing returns expired on 3.2.2010. 55. The 2[nd] respondent/2nd respondent/applicant initiallyfiled an application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961on 12.11.2010. As mentioned elsewhere in the beginning,the said application was dismissed by the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission by its order dated 16.11.2010.Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent/2nd respondent/applicant filed areturn on 16.12.2010 and a revised application under Section245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 14.12.2010 before the 1[st]respondent Settlement Commission. 56. In the application filed before the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered atotal income of Rs.18,49,20,580/- for these assessment yearsconsisting of Rs.11,55,18,508/- as the additional income overand above the amount of Rs.6,94,02,072.- for the purpose ofsettling the case under chapter XIX-A of theIncome Tax Act,1961. 57. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission afterconsidering the reports of the petitioner Income TaxDepartment further added another sum Rs.5,95,00,142/-. Thisamount is almost an addition of 51.5% to the additional amountoffered by the 2nd respondent/applicant in the applicationfiled under Section 245C of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 for a sumof Rs.11,55,18,508/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that therewas full and true disclosure of the additional income in theapplication filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent should have dismissed theapplication. Further, for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and2007-08, the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission has reducedthe additional amount of income from Rs.4,40,38,570/- toRs.1,26,85,993/- and for the Assessment Year 2007-08 fromRs.4,24,66,350/- to Rs.31,06,904/- which was unwarranted. 58. Thus, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Courtin Ajmera Housing Corporation and another vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2010) 8 SCC 739 cited above squarely applies tothe facts of the present case. Therefore, the writpetition deserves to be allowed. M/s.Accent Pharma:W.P.No.24278 of 2013 58. Thus, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Courtin Ajmera Housing Corporation and another vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2010) 8 SCC 739 cited above squarely applies tothe facts of the present case. Therefore, the writpetition deserves to be allowed. M/s.Accent Pharma:W.P.No.24278 of 2013 59. This case pertains to Block Assessment year 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. The following table will explain theincome that was originally disclosed in the returns filedunder Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additionalincome offered in the application and the additional incomearrived by the first respondent Settlement Commission in thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/impugned order. 60. The total income for the block assessment years2006-07 to 2008-09 in the returns filed by the said 2ndrespondent/applicant/2[nd]respondenthereinwasRs.2,10,06,060/-. After the search was completed under Section132oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961,thesaid2ndrespondent/applicant was issued with the notice dated 4.1.2010under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The last datefor filing returns expired on 03.02.2010. 61. The 2nd respondent/applicant initially filed anapplication under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961on12.11.2010. As mentioned elsewhere in the order, the saidapplication was also dismissed by the 1[st] respondent SettlementCommission by its order dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the 2ndrespondent/applicant filed a return on 01.12. 2010 underSection 153 A of the Act and a fresh application under Section245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 01.12.2010 before the 1[st]respondent Settlement Commission. 62. The application filed before the 1[st] respondentSettlement Commission, the 2nd respondent/applicant offered atotal income of Rs.5,05,69,810/- for these assessment yearsconsisting of Rs.2,95,63,750/ - as the additional income forthe purpose of settling the case under chapter XIX-A oftheIncome Tax Act, 1961. 63. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission afterconsidering the reports of the petitioner Income TaxDepartment added another sum Rs.2,93,16,704/- . This amount isdouble the additional amount offered by the 2ndhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/respondent/applicant in the application filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for sum ofRs.2,95,63,750/-. The amount of income enhanced is almost100% of the additional income offered by the 2ndrespondent/applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that therewas full and true disclosure of the additional income in theapplication filed under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act,1961. 64. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court inAjmera Housing Corporation and another vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (2010) 8 SCC 739 cited above also squarely appliesto the facts of the present case. Therefore, the writpetition deserves to be allowed. 65. The 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission thereforeought to have rejected the application for by these 2ndrespondent/applicants as the intention of the 2ndrespondent/applicant was only to take a chance by notdisclosing truly and fully the correct additional income whichwas not disclosed at the time of filing of original returnsunder Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It wasintended take advantage of limited scope of enquiry in theproceeding before the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission. Theimpugned order of the 1[st] respondent Settlement Commission isliable to be quashed. 66. Therefore, the above writ petitions filed by thepetitioner Commissioner of Income Tax deserves to be allowedand are accordingly allowed. 67. In the result, all the three writ petitions filedby the Commissioner of Income Tax are allowed withconsequential relief. No cost. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar 66. Therefore, the above writ petitions filed by thepetitioner Commissioner of Income Tax deserves to be allowedand are accordingly allowed. 67. In the result, all the three writ petitions filedby the Commissioner of Income Tax are allowed withconsequential relief. No cost. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkdTo The Income Tax Settlement Commission,Additional Bench,640, Anna Salai, Nandanam,Chennai 600 035. Pre-delivery Common Order in W.P.Nos.24147, 24179 & 24278 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 1 of 2013 GPL(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/B.VC(19.07.2021)