Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Absence of Full and True Disclosure Renders Settlement Application Void of Jurisdiction: Delhi HC Overturns ITSC Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling, has set aside an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, stemming from the failure of the respondent-assessee group to make a full and true disclosure of income.

The court examined the statutory requirement of “full and true disclosure” under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its implications on the jurisdiction of the ITSC. The judgment emphasized that without a complete and honest disclosure, the ITSC lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application or provide immunity from prosecution and penalties.

The respondent-assessee group, engaged in real estate, was subjected to a search operation. They later filed applications for settlement under Section 245C, disclosing additional income. The ITSC, in its order dated June 9, 2014, accepted the applications despite the Revenue contesting the adequacy of disclosure. This led the Revenue to challenge the ITSC’s order.

The court meticulously dissected the issue, referring to legislative provisions and numerous precedents. Key observations included:

Jurisdiction of ITSC: The ITSC can only consider applications under Section 245C that include full and true disclosure of income. Any lack of such disclosure deprives ITSC of jurisdiction.

Foundation of Settlement Applications: Full, true, and honest disclosure of income and its source is fundamental. Inadequate disclosure renders ITSC’s order legally unsustainable.

ITSC’s Error in Law: Acknowledging that the respondent-assessee group failed to fully disclose income, the ITSC erred in law by approving the application and granting immunity.

Impermissibility of Application Revision: Chapter XIX-A of the Act does not allow for revision or amendment of an application under Section 245C, affirming the importance of initial full disclosure.

The Delhi High Court set aside the ITSC order dated June 9, 2014, due to the lack of full and true disclosure by the respondent-assessee group, thus allowing the writ petition filed by the Revenue.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2, DELHI vs. PANKAJ BUILDWELL LTD. & GROUP

Latest Legal News