The Settlement Commission rejected the plea of the Department for further enquiry. On a writ the Court held that the Settlement Commission, in its order, had specifically referred to seven deeds of registration seized in the search and had found that three of those properties were purchased in the individual names of the partners of the firms in question and not in the names of the assessees. Proceedings under section 153A were initiated and orders were passed, wherein no adverse inference was drawn. The enquiry was with respect to the investment in certain properties found during the search and seizure operation under section 132. There was no enquiry conducted by the Department on the website, and no materials were produced before the Settlement Commission in respect of the properties in question. In respect of the sale agreements, the only contention of the Department was that though notices were issued to the parties mentioned in the deeds, none had appeared, and hence they were bogus persons, and the agreements were set up to conceal the investments made. But for the bland assertion of concealment of income, there was nothing to establish as to how the mere agreement of sale between two persons could lead to concealment of income. The Department also had not conducted any enquiry except for issuing letters to the registered addresses of the persons mentioned in the deeds and on receiving no response, it had styled them as bogus, summarily. On such findings the Settlement Commission had rejected the plea for a further inquiry, which was proper and no interference was warranted.