Dismissing the petition the Court held that; It is not open to the Revenues to challenge the correctness of facts recorded in the order by the Settlement Commission before this Court, particularly when it is not even remotely the case of the Revenue that the consent was given/made on a wrong appreciation of law. The remedy, if any, would have been to move the Settlement Commission to correct, what according to the Revenue, was an incorrect recording in the impugned order. Thus, we see no reason to interfere. Besides, the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue that the concession be ignored in view of the conduct of the Revenue is not even averred to in the petition as filed and/or that the concession made was contrary to law. Revenues cannot challenge the correctness of facts recorded in the order by the Settlement Commission before High Court, when it is not even remotely the Revenue’s case that the consent was given/made on a wrong appreciation of law. (dt. 21-06 -2018) ( AY.2014-15)
PCIT v. ITSC (2018) 172 DTR 110 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 245D : Settlement of cases—Voluntary offer of income-Commission computed assessee’s aggregate income which was neither objected by assessee nor by Department—Said suo motu offer in no way detracts from character of full and true disclosure- —Subsequently, all issues in applicant’s case was settled—Held, it was not open to Revenues to challenge correctness of facts recorded in order by Settlement Commission before this Court, particularly when it was not even remotely case of Revenue that consent was given/made on a wrong appreciation of law. [S. 245C]