Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

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