A search and seizure operation came to be carried out at the residential and business premises of the Banco Products (India ) Ltd  group of companies of which the assessees were directors. Pursuant to the search, notices under section 148 and section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were issued to the three assessees for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2013-14, 2004-05 to 2015-16 and 2004-05 to 2015-16 respectively. In response thereto, the assessees filed Income-tax returns disclosing undisclosed foreign income and assets. Thereafter they filed separate applications under section 245C of the 1961 Act before the Settlement Commission disclosing additional undisclosed foreign income and assets. The Settlement Commission passed an order on January 30, 2019 settling the cases and granting reliefs. On February 18, 2019, the Assessing Officer passed orders giving effect to the order of the Settlement Commission and determined the additional tax payable, and issued notices of demand under section 156 of the 1961 Act on the same day. Each of the assessees paid the additional tax payable. On writ petition filed by the Department on May 30, 2019 challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Commission as without jurisdiction since the Settlement Commission had no jurisdiction to pass an order under the 1961 Act in relation to undisclosed foreign income and assets covered under the 2015 Act ;  dismissing the petition court held that ,  it was an admitted position that the residential status of two of the assessees was non-resident for the assessment year 2016-17 and for the third for the assessment year 2014-15 onwards. Thus, when the 2015 Act came into force, the assessees were not residents. It could not be said that the assessees fell within the ambit of the expression “assessee” as defined under clause (2) of section 2 of the 2015 Act as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2019. The expression “assessee” was amended on August 1, 2019, albeit with retrospective effect from July 1, 2015, and as on the date when the Settlement Commission passed the order, namely, January 30, 2019, the assessees were not “assessees” within the meaning of such expression as contemplated under section 2(2) of the 2015 Act and were, therefore, not covered by the provisions of that Act. The search proceedings were conducted after the 2015 Act came into force and consequently, the notices under sections 148 and 153A of the 1961 Act were also issued after the 2015 Act came into force. The fact that these notices under sections 148 and 153A of the 1961 Act were issued in respect of undisclosed foreign income or assets could be substantiated on a perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. The Revenue authorities were well aware of the fact that the provisions of the 2015 Act covered undisclosed foreign income only from the assessment year 2016-17 onwards and, therefore, categorically submitted to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission and requested it to proceed further pursuant to the applications made by the assessees under section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was only for this reason that notices under the 2015 Act were issued only for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 148 and section 153A of the 1961 Act for different assessment years. Therefore, proceedings for assessment or reassessment as contemplated under clauses (i) and (iiia) of the Explanation to clause (b) of section 245A had commenced and were pending before the Assessing Officer when the applications under section 245C of the 1961 Act came to be made. Therefore, the requirements of the provisions of section 245C of the 1961 Act were duly satisfied when the applications thereunder came to be made by the assessees. Upon receipt of the applications made under section 245C of the 1961 Act, the Settlement Commission proceeded further in accordance with the provisions of section 245D of the 1961 Act. At the stage when it was brought to its notice that notices under section 10 of the 2015 Act had been issued to the assessees, the Settlement Commission gave ample opportunity to the Revenue to decide what course of action it wanted to adopt, and it was the Revenue which categorically invited an order from the Settlement Commission in respect of the undisclosed foreign income and assets disclosed before it. The record of the case showed that the requirements of section 245D of the 1961 Act had been duly satisfied prior to the passing of the order under section 245D(4) . The proceedings before the Settlement Commission were taken in connection with notices issued under sections 148 and 153A of the 1961 Act, and it was therefore, that the Settlement Commission had the jurisdiction to decide the applications under section 245C of that Act, which related to the proceedings in respect of those notices. If it was the case of the Revenue that the undisclosed foreign income and assets of the assessees were covered by the provisions of the 2015 Act, the notices under sections 148 and 153A of the 1961 Act, which mainly related to undisclosed foreign income, ought to have been withdrawn and proceedings ought to have been initiated under the relevant provisions of the 2015 Act. The Settlement Commission had the jurisdiction to decide the applications under section 245C .  Court also held that  the Settlement Commission, after considering the material on record, had given a finding of fact to the effect that there was a full and true disclosure made by the assessees and that there was no wilful attempt to conceal material facts. If for the reason that issues which pertained to past periods could not be reconciled due to lack of further evidence, the assessees, with a view to bring about a settlement, agreed to pay a higher amount as proposed by the Revenue, it certainly could not be termed a revision of the original disclosure made under section 245C of the 1961 Act, inasmuch as, there was no further disclosure but an acceptance of additional liability based on the disclosure already made before the Settlement Commission. Another aspect of the matter was that it was an admitted position that prior to the presentation of the writ petition, the order of the Settlement Commission came to be fully implemented. This was not mentioned in the writ petition. Therefore there was suppression of material facts. The order passed by the Settlement Commission was valid. ( R/SCA No. 9883 of 2019 dt 22-10-2019 ) (AY. 2004 -05 to 2015 -16)