The assessee-company, filed a settlement application relating to assessment year 2012-13 before the Settlement Commission for settlement of its income tax matters by disclosing certain income. The application was proceeded with under section 245 D(1) of the Act. The Settlement Commission called for a report under rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997 from the Principal Commissioner. In the said report, the Commissioner/petitioner objected to the settlement of the case of assessee alleging that the assessee had not made true and correct disclosure of its undisclosed income before the Settlement Commission.  The petitioner also alleged that the assessee was compelled to disclose its undisclosed income arising out of unrecorded business transactions only when the existence of the same was brought to light by the survey operation and alleged that had the survey not been conducted and the documents not seized, the assessee would not have disclosed any unaccounted income voluntarily. The Settlement Commission allowed the application of assessee, holding that once the documents had been impounded in the course of survey, contents of the documents would be presumed to be true as per provisions of section 292C and once the applicant had disclosed the profit/income as per notings on those documents, any further probe or query in the matter would serve no purpose. The Revenue filed writ petition. Dismissing the petition the Court held that the petitioner could not make out any exceptional case in this writ petition for exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 for scrutinizing or reappreciating the facts, evidence or findings of the Settlement Commission in reaching to its conclusion of allowing the claim of the assessee made in settlement application and further the Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under article 226 cannot substitute the findings of the Settlement Commission with its own findings and come to a different conclusion. The Court also observed that the petitioner could not demonstrate before the Court any legal infirmity in decision making process in course of impugned income tax settlement proceeding. Writ petition was dismissed. (W.P.O. 289 of 2017 dt. 14-9-2021)(SJ)