Allowing the writ petition of the revenue the Court held that in the instant case, the assessee having knowledge about the search and having received notice under section 153A of the Act, ought to have submitted all such particulars along with the application including the undisclosed income recovered by the Department in the application itself. The assessee had not filed any details regarding the undisclosed income recovered by the Department in her application under section 245C of the Act and therefore, the very application for settlement was certainly not entertainable and the Department had, prima facie, established that the assessee had not approached the Settlement Commission with clean hands. The assessee had not truly and fully disclosed her income and more specifically, the undisclosed income recovered during the search was not made available before the Settlement Commission along with the application. This would be sufficient to reject the application by the Settlement Commission. Contrarily, the Settlement Commission proceeded by adjudicating the issues on the merits on the presumption that the Settlement Commission can pass an assessment order, which is otherwise not permissible under the provisions of section 245C of the Act. Thus, the order passed by the Settlement Commission was perverse and not in consonance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order was not valid. (AY. 2007-08 to 2013-14)
CIT v. ITSC (2021) 434 ITR 546 / 205 DTR 305/ 322 CTR 517 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Full and true disclosure of income-Not disclosing the income discovered during search-Acceptance of application is held to be not valid-Writ petition is held to be maintainable-Order is held to be perverse. [S. 132, 153A, 245D, Art. 226]