Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme 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