The Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on the premise that the assessee had failed to make a true and full disclosure; however, it was not even the case of the Department that there was absence of true and full disclosure, since in such a situation the ITSC would not have proceeded beyond the stage contemplated under s. 245D(2C). The ITSC having recorded satisfaction regarding true and full disclosure and thereafter passed an order under s. 245D(4), interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted. The Court held that even assuming that the ITSC had committed a calculation error or adopted an incorrect interpretation of seized documents, the same would not justify judicial interference, as the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the sufficiency of material considered by the Settlement Commission. If the grievance of the Revenue related to a computational mistake, it was open to the Department to approach the competent authority/Interim Board in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order of the Single Judge was quashed and the order of under s. 245D(4) passed by the ITSC affirmed.  (AY. 2006-07 to 2012-13)