Income Tax Reassessment - Validity of Proceedings - Assessee's Failure to File Regular Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for Assessment Years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 - Discrepancy in Capital and Current Accounts - Assessee's Justification for Non-filing Based on Department's Seizure of Documents - Assessment Officer's Relying on Balance Sheet Submitted for Loan to South Indian Bank - Tribunal's Order Setting Aside Reassessment Validated - High Court's Reversal Erroneous - Supreme Court Restores Tribunal's Order - Original Assessments Under Section 143(3) Not Based on False Declaration by Assessee - Reassessment Concluded as Mere Change of Opinion by Assessing Officer, Not Legally Permissible - No Valid Ground for Reassessment under Section 147 - Appeals Allowed [Paras 32-45].

Reassessment of Income – Validity and Limitations: Challenge against the High Court’s order reversing the Tribunal's decision on the reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment based on a comparison of the assessee's balance sheets – Issue of whether the reassessment was based on mere change of opinion or on tangible new evidence. [Para 1, 37-45]

Material Disclosure by Assessee – Obligation and Scope: Examination of the assessee's duty to disclose fully and truly all primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment – Evaluation of whether the assessee's disclosure met legal requirements in the absence of regular books of account due to seizure by the department. [Para 41, 43-44]

Validity of Returns in Absence of Regular Books of Account: Discussion on the validity of returns filed without regular books of account – Assessing officer's discretion in treating returns as defective and the impact of non-exercise of this discretion on the validity of the returns. [Para 43]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction for Reassessment: Exploration of the circumstances under which an assessing officer can reassess income – Analysis of whether the officer’s belief of income escape was based on specific, reliable information or was a result of change in opinion. [Para 38, 42]

Decision: High Court’s order setting aside the Tribunal's decision is reversed – Tribunal's findings that reassessment for the contested years was not justified are restored, thereby allowing the appeals of the assessee and its partners. [Para 45-46]

Constitutional Law – Electoral Process – Appointment of Election Commissioners – The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of the process of appointment of Election Commissioners under Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, as challenged in multiple writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1-2]

Challenge to the Appointment Process – raised – concerns over the substitution of the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, arguing it impacts the transparency and fairness of elections, a foundational element of democracy. Also questioned were procedural irregularities in the selection process, including the inadequate provision of candidate information to the Selection Committee members. [Para 2-3, 6-7]

Response from Union of India – provided – justification for the 2023 Act, outlining the formation and actions of the Selection and Search Committees as per the Act. Emphasized the preponement of the selection meeting, the constitution of the committees, and the resignation of an Election Commissioner. [Para 4-8]

Judicial Restraint in Granting Interim Orders – emphasized – the Court's cautious approach in matters involving the constitutionality of legislations, upholding the principle that unless a provision is ex facie unconstitutional, interim orders should not be granted to suspend statutory provisions. [Para 10]

Rejection of Interim Order for Re-selection – decided – the Court refused to direct a fresh selection process with the Chief Justice of India as a member of the Selection Committee, stating that it would be inappropriate without declaring Section 7(1) unconstitutional and would amount to the Court enacting new law. [Para 11]

Impact on Forthcoming Elections – considered – The Court declined to intervene with the appointments of the Election Commissioners, citing the potential for causing confusion and constitutional breakdown ahead of the scheduled 18th General Elections for the Lok Sabha. [Para 12-13]

Procedural Concerns in Selection – noted – While expressing concern over the selection procedure's shortcomings, the Court refrained from issuing any directive or interim order, emphasizing the importance of proper deliberation and the examination of candidates' backgrounds in such selections. [Para 14]

Constitutional Functioning of Appointees – reminded – The Court highlighted the expectation that constitutional post holders, once selected, will adhere to constitutional roles and propriety, referencing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's views on the functioning of a constitution irrespective of its quality. [Para 15]

Conclusion – Applications for Stay Dismissed – The Supreme Court, upon consideration, dismissed the applications for stay and other related applications, maintaining that its observations in this order are tentative and not final, as the matter is sub-judice. [Para 16-19]

Dispute on Partition and Legal Heir Status – Involving agricultural land in Tamil Nadu – Original suit filed for partition and possession by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – Appellants, later impleaded, claimed shares as legal heirs of Muthusamy Gounder, the common ancestor – Issue centered on the validity of marriages and legitimacy of children from extended family [Paras 2-6].

Trial Court and High Court Findings – Both courts dismissed the suit based on non-establishment of valid marriages of Muthusamy Gounder with Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 – Denied coparcenary status to extended family members due to lack of evidence on the factum of marriage [Paras 8-9].

Supreme Court Analysis – Focused on the entitlement of appellants to a share in the property as children of Muthusamy Gounder – Considered Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admissions and declarations in documented evidence [Paras 12-15].

Admission in Documented Evidence – Muthusamy Gounder's acknowledgment of appellants and respondent No. 1 as his sons in a mortgage deed (Ex. B-6) and other documents treated as valid admissions, binding on the parties [Para 15].

Application of Legal Principles – Relied on the principles of legitimacy and rights to parental property under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Children from void or voidable marriages entitled to a share in the notional partitioned property of Muthusamy Gounder [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Preliminary decree of partition passed, dividing the property firstly between Respondent No. 3 and Muthusamy Gounder, and then among Muthusamy Gounder's children, including Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 – Appeal allowed [Para 18-19].

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Misrepresentation and Suppression of Material Facts – Appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail – Appellant’s manipulative practices in filing multiple bail applications and concealing information from the court – Supreme Court’s emphasis on integrity in judicial proceedings. [Para 2, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19, 23]

Judicial Integrity – Importance of Truthfulness in Legal System – Reference to past judgements emphasizing honesty in court proceedings – Condemnation of deceit and misrepresentation in legal practices – Call for maintaining purity in the administration of justice. [Para 3, 5, 7]

Contempt of Court – Consequences of Fabricating Documents and Misleading the Court – Overview of legal precedents dealing with contempt for deceiving the court – Emphasis on punishing and deterring such acts to maintain faith in the judicial system. [Para 3-4, 14]

Bail Procedure – Guidelines for Bail Applications – Mandatory disclosure of all previous and pending bail applications – Instructions to streamline bail application processes to prevent judicial discrepancies and anomalies. [Para 20-21]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous – Imposition of token cost on appellant for attempting to mislead the court – Directions issued to High Courts for systemic corrections in handling bail applications. [Para 22-25]

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Disputes – Emphasized the need to differentiate between purely civil disputes and criminal offences – Civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases – Referenced Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Another, (2023) 5 SCC 360 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736. [Para 2, 3]

Criteria for Offences under IPC Sections 420 and 406 – Mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence under Sections 420 or 406 of the IPC unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction. [Para 2]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Directed the release of appellants Jay Shri and Hitesh Kela on bail in the event of arrest, in connection with FIR no. 0220/2022, subject to conditions fixed by the trial court and compliance with conditions in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. [Para 4]

Observations Not Reflective of Case Merits – Clarification that the grant of anticipatory bail and observations in the order are not opinions on the merits of the case and will not influence any civil proceedings. [Para 5]

Criminal Appeal – Bail under UAPA Act – High Court's rejection of bail – Accused arrested under Explosive Substances Act and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act – Petitioner challenges the High Court's order denying bail – Interpretation of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA Act – Relevance of co-accused statements – Lack of overt Act of terrorism attributed to the petitioner – Criminal antecedents – Application of precedent from NIA Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali – Burden of proof on the accused – Bail denied based on reasonable grounds for believing the accusations are prima facie true. [Para 2-9]

Decision - Considering the chargesheet details, the petitioner's criminal history, and legal interpretations, the Court finds no merit in the bail application - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. [Para 8, 9]

Real Estate Transaction – Refund of Advance Payment – Appeal against the rejection of the suit for refund under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC – Appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 40,14,500 paid as an advance in a land sale agreement – Appeal allowed for refund of advance payment with interest. [Para 2, 5-6]

Contractual Obligations – Interpretation of Agreement to Sell – Dispute over the amount received and terms of the agreement – Respondent admitted to receiving Rs. 23 lakhs, appellant claimed to have paid Rs. 40,14,500 – Court's decision in favor of equitable justice for the appellant. [Para 4-5]

Judicial Discretion in Civil Matters – Equitable Justice and Interest – Court exercised discretion in favor of the appellant, considering the long duration for which the advance amount was held by the respondents – Ordered refund of Rs. 40,00,000 to the appellant. [Para 5-6]

Modification of Lower Court's Order – Supreme Court's intervention to ensure justice – Lower court's order modified to direct the respondents to refund the advance payment with interest – Appeal partly allowed. [Para 6-7]

Jurisdiction and Justiciability – Quashing of FIR and Chargesheet by High Court – Challenge against High Court order for quashing FIR and chargesheet related to creation of fake documents by a public servant – Supreme Court considering the necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC for prosecution. [Para 2, 8]

Criminal Conspiracy and Fabrication of Documents – Allegations against a public servant (Village Accountant) for creating fake documents and misappropriating land – Chargesheet filed under various sections of IPC for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. [Para 3, 6, 7]

Sanction for Prosecution – High Court's decision based on lack of sanction under Section 197 Cr.PC – Supreme Court examining whether acts of creating fake documents fall under 'official duty' of a public servant, and the applicability of Section 197 Cr.PC. [Para 8, 16, 17-19, 23, 25]

Judicial Review – Supreme Court’s analysis of whether High Court was justified in quashing the FIR and chargesheet against a public servant – Consideration of precedents on the requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants. [Para 12-15, 20-22, 24, 25]

Decision – High Court's order quashing FIR and chargesheet set aside – Supreme Court allows the appeal, stating that fabrication of official documents cannot be considered as an act done in the discharge of official duties by a public servant – All observations made for the purpose of deciding the present challenge and not as an opinion on merit. [Para 26, 27]

Criminal Appeal – Interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing the petition to quash FIR and remand order – Appellant, a former Chief Minister, implicated in corruption-related offences – Allegations involve siphoning off government funds – Key issue centers around the applicability and interpretation of Section 17A, introduced by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. [Para 1-3, 8-10]

Section 17A – Applicability and Interpretation – Differing opinions on whether Section 17A applies retrospectively or prospectively – Section 17A prohibits enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences alleged against a public servant without prior approval, where offences relate to decisions or recommendations made in official capacity – Majority opinion suggests Section 17A is substantive, applying prospectively to offences defined post-amendment, and not to repealed offences – Dissenting opinion suggests Section 17A as procedural, potentially applicable retroactively. [Para 11-28]

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Validity of Remand Order – Special Court held jurisdiction to pass remand order against the appellant, charged under IPC offences alongside offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – No jurisdictional error found in the remand order passed by the Special Court. [Para 29]

Conclusion and Referral to Larger Bench – Contradictory opinions on key legal issues lead to referral to a larger bench for resolution – Matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate action. [Order]

Decision – Appeal dismissed due to lack of merit, subject to further adjudication by a larger bench on specific legal questions. [Para 30, Order]