Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

Similar News