The application of the petitioner was rejected by the Settlement Commission at the stage of admission. On writ the Court held that the petitioner has explained the manner of acquiring the income which was supported with the material. Settlement Commission has overlooked all these aspects while rejecting the application. The Settlement Commission was dealing with first stage of admission of the case wherein no prejudice may be caused to the revenue if such application were to be entertained while on the contrary a rejection of the application at this stage closes door to the declarant, for ever Order of Settlement Commission. Was set aside. The Court also observed that the Settlement Commission has been disbanded and at present replaced by an Interim Board, the matter be placed before the Interim Board for further proceedings, in accordance with law. (AY. 2012-13 to 2018-19)
Indu Srivastava v. ITSC (2021) 206 DTR 265 / 323 CTR 174 /( 2022) 440 ITR 280 / 286 Taxman 52 (All.)(HC)
S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Manner of acquiring the income had been explained-Additional income was disclosed-Order of settlement Commission rejection of application was set aside-Directed the Interim board to decide the matter in accordance with law. [S. 56(2)(vii), 132(4A), 245D, 292C, Art. 226]