AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. ETC. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

                   [2010] 10 S.C.R. 183


 AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION & ANR. ETC. ETC.                    A
                              v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 6827-6848 of 2010)
                     AUGUST 20, 2010
                                                                B
            [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

      Income Tax Act, 1961 - s 245C- Settlement of cases -
Pre-requisites for - Held: Section 245C mandates disclosure
of 'full and true' particulars of undisclosed income and 'the C
manner' in which such income had been derived - Amount
of income tax payable on such undisclosed income is to be
computed and mentioned in the application - Income Tax
Settlement Commission has the jurisdiction to pass any order
on the matter covered by the application only when it records D
its satisfaction on the said aspect - There is no stipulation
for ·revision of application filed uls. 245C(1) and thus,
determination of income by Settlement Commission has
necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in
the application filed uls. 245C in the prescribed form - On E
facts, Income Tax Settlement Commission decided to
proceed with the application of the assessee u/s. 245C(1 ),
disclosing additional incomes at different stages of
proceedings and thereafter, passed final order uls. 2450(4),
 determining the total income of assessee for assessment F
years - Order of High Court setting aside the final order, and
 remanding the matters back to Settlement Commission for
 consideration afresh, does not call for interference -
 Disclosure of Rs. 11.41 crores as additional undisclosed
 income in the revised annexure as against the income of Rs.
 1. 94 crores, sufficient to establish that the application made G
 by assessee u/s. 245C(1) could not be entertained as it did
 not contain a 'true and full' disclosure' of their undisclosed
 income and 'the manner' in which such income had been
                             183                                H
    184      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 10 S.C.R.

A derived - Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure)
  Rules, 1987 - r. 6 - Constitution of India, 12950 - Article 136.

         Interpretation of statutes - Taxing statute - Construction
    of - Held: Is to be construed strictly - Relevant provision is
    to be looked at - There is no presumption as to a tax -
8
    Nothing is to be read in and nothing is to be implied - There
    is no equity about a tax.

         The appellant-assessee filed an application u/s.
    245C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for settlement before
C   the Income Tax Settlement Commission, disclosing an
    additional income of Rs.1,94,33,580/- for the assessment
    years 1989-90 to 1993-94, in addition to the income
    declared in the returns of income submitted by them
    earlier. The Commissioner of Income Tax objected to the
D   entertainment of the application for settlement as not
    being a full and true disclosure of their income. On 19th
    September, 1994, the assessee filed a revised settlement
    application containing "confidential annexure and related
    papers", declaring an additional income. On 17th
E   November, 1994, the Settlement Commission decided to
    proceed with the application. During the course of
    hearing in the case before the Settlement Commission, '
    the assessee made a further disclosure of undisclosed
    income. On 29th January, 1999, the Settlement
F   Commission passed the final order u/s. 2450(4),
    determining the total income of the assessee for
    assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 at Rs.42.58 crores.
    It imposed a 'token' penalty of Rs.50 lakhs as against the
    minimum leviable penalty of Rs.562.87 lakhs, as per its
    own assessment and graoted:-immunity-to-thectssessee
G   against prosecution andfo respect of other penalties
    under the Act. The Commissioner filed a writ petition. The
    High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the
    order of the Settlement Commission. It declared order
    dated 17th November, 1994 as void ab-initio and quashed
H
       AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                    185
       . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
order dated 29th January, 1999. The High Court remitted        A
the proceedings back tp the Settlement Commission for
decision afresh. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the
order passed by this Court, the matter was heard afresh
by the High Court. The High Court again set aside
Settlement Commission's order dated 29th January, 1999         B
and remitted the matter back to ·the Settlement
Commission for consideration afresh. Therefore, the
appellants filed the instant appeals.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                               c
    HELD: 1.1 The disclosure of 'full and true' particulars
of undisclosed income and 'the manner' in which such
income had been derived are the pre-requisites for a valid
application u/s. 245C (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for
settlement.I Additionally, the amount of income tax D
payable on such undisclosed income is to be computed
and mentioned in the application. Section 245C(1) of the·.
Act mandates 'full and true' disclosure of the particulars
of undisclosed income and 'the manner' in which such
income was derived and, therefore, unless the Settlement E
Commission records its satisfaction on this aspect, it will
not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on the matter
covered by the application. [Paras 22 and 23) [205-A-C]

     1.2 Even when the Settlement Commission decides
                                                               F
to proceed with the application, it will not be denuded of
its power to examine as to whether the assessee in his
application u/s. 245C(1) of the Act, has made a full and
true disclosure of his undisclosed income. The report(s)
of the Commissioner and other documents coming on
record at different stages of the consideration of the case,   G
before or after the Settlement Commission has decided
to proceed with the application, would be most germane
to determination of the said. question. It is plain from the
language of sub-section (4) of section 245D of the Act that
                                                               H
    186 ·   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to pass
  such orders as it may think fit is confined to the matters
  covered by the application and it can extend only to such
  matters which are referred to in the report of the
  Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of
8 the said Section. A 'full and true' disclosure of income,
  which had not been previously disclosed by the
  assessee, being a pre-condition for a valid application u/
  s. 245C(1) of the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does
  not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in
c the application against item No. 11 of the form. Moreover,
  if an assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in
  essence, he would be making a fresh application in
  relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier
  application. Section 245C(3) of the Act which prohibits the
  withdrawal of an application once made under sub-
0
  section (1) of the said Section is instructive in as much
  as it manifests ttiat an assessee cannot be permitted ~o
  resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedings.
  Therefore, by re.vising the application, the applicant would
  be achieving something indirectly what he cannot
E otherwise achieve directly and in the process rendering
  the provision of sub-section (3) ~f section 245C of the Act
  otiose and meaningless. The scheme of said Chapter is
  clear and admits no ambiguity. [Para 26] [210-B-G]

F      1.3 In the scheme of Chapter XIX-A,      " there is no
  stipulation for revision of an application filed u/s. 245C(1)
  of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that
  determination of income by the Settlement Commission
  has necessarily to be with reference to the income
G disclosed in the application filed under the said section
  in the prescribed form. [Para 28] [211-D]

         1.4 A taxing statute is to be construed strictly. In a
    taxing Act, one has to look merely at what is said in the

H
       AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                   187
        COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax.      A
Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There
is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about
a tax. [Para 27] [210-H; 211-A]

     Cape Brandy Syndicate vs. Inland Revenue                 B
Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 64; Federation of A.P.
Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Ors. vs. State of
A.P. and Ors.(2000) 6 SCC 550; Commissioner of Sa/es Tax,
Uttar Pradesh vs. The Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. 1961 (2) SCR
189 - referred to.
                                                              c
     1.5 The view of the High Court that it would not be
proper to set aside the proceedings before the Settlement
Commission eve.n though it was convinced that the
assessee had not made full and true disclosure of their
income while making application u/s. 245C of the Act,         D
cannot be accepted. The High Court in its earlier order
dated 28th July, 2000 while declaring order dated 17th
November, 1994, as ab initio void and setting aside order
dated 29th January, 1999, remitted the case to the
Settlement Commission to decide the entire matter             E
afresh, including the question of maintainability of the
application u/s. 245C(1) of the Act. The said order of the
High Gourt was put in issue before this Court and was
set aside and the case was remanded back to the High
Court for consideration afresh. Nevertheless, all points      F
raised by the parties, including the plea of the revenue
that the application filed by the assessee before the
Settlement Commission was not maintainable as the
assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their
 undisclosed income were kept open. The High Court            G
addressed itself on the said issue and found that the
assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their
 income while making the application u/s. 245C(1 ), yet did
 not find it proper to set aside the. proceedings on that
ground. Having recorded the said adverse finding on the       H
    188    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A very basic requirement of a valid application u/s. 245C(1)
  of the Act, the High Court's opinion that it would not be
  proper to set aside the proceedings is clearly erroneous.
  [Para 30) [211-F-G; 212-A-D]

         W T Ramsay Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners
8
    1981 (1) All ER 865; Inland Revenue Commissioners vs.
    Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1, (1935) All ER 259 -
    referred to.

       1.6 In the instant case, the disclosure of Rs.11.41
C crores as additional undisclosed income in the revised
  annexure, filed on 19.09.1994 alone was sufficient to
  establish that the application made by the assessee on
  30.09.1993 u/s. 245C(1) of the Act could not be entertained
  as it did not contain a 'true and full' disclosure of their
D undisclosed income and 'the manner' in which such
  income had been derived. [Para 31) [213-D-E]

      1.7 The submission that. the High Court failed to
  consider, in their correct perspective the two reports
E submitted by the Commissioner on 30.08.1995 and
  20.10.1997, in as much as, in the latter report the
  Commissioner had himself computed the undisclosed
  income at Rs.42.52 crores, which was equivalent to the
  amount finally determined by the Settlement Commission,
  thus there was no justification for the remand of the case
F back to the Settlement Commission, does not merit
  acceptance. [Para 32) [213-G-H; 214-A]

       1.8 In the impugned order, on a critical examination
  of the order passed by the Settlement Commission with
G reference to the said two reports, in particular the
  reconciliation report submitted by the Commissioner on
  20.10.1997, estimating the undisclosed income at Rs.
  187.20 crores, the High Court found that only that part of
  the report dated 20.10.1997, which dealt with 'on money'
H
       AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                 189
        COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

was highlighted before this Court, while other incomes, A
investments, receipts or payments were not covered in
that part of the statement. The High Court also observed
that the manner in which expenses were shown, created
a serious doubt about the expenditure of Rs.734.02 lakhs.
The High Court also noted that the Se.ttlement B
Commission had not properly dealt with the amount of
Rs.911.51 lakhs on account of unexplained expenses,
loans and surplus amount of Rs.488.98 lakhs, while
assessing the total income and thus, an amount of
Rs.14.49 crores was left out while determining the c
undisclosed income of the assessee. Besides, the High
Court also commented that having com.e to the
conclusion that the penalty leviable worked out to be Rs.
562.87 lakhs, the Settlement Commission had no reason
for levying a token penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was not 0
even 10% of the minimum leviable penalty. Ultimately, the
High Co.urt observed that since the Se~tlement
Commission did not supply annexure filed on 19.09.1994,
declaring additional income of Rs.11.41 crores, due
opportunity had not been given to the revenue to place
                                                            E
 its stand properly; that huge amount of unexplained
expenses, unexplained loans and unexplained surplus,
total of which was more than Rs.14 crores, was not taken
into consideration while passing the final order and that
 the Settlement Commission had imposed token penalty
of Rs.50 lakhs while on its own assessment leviable F
 penalty would have been Rs.562.87 lakhs. Further, if the
 amount which had not been taken into consideration
while assessing the total undisclosed income was to be
 taken into account, the amount of leviable penalty would
 have been much more. In the light of these facts, the High G
 Court formed the opinion that it would be in the interest
 of justice to set aside the final order passed by the
 Settlement Commission and to remand the case back to
 it for adjudication on assessee's application afresh. It
 cannot be said that there was no justification for order H
   190      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A of remand by the High Court and that the order passed
  by the Settlement Commission should have been
  affirmed. The High Court was correct in making the order
  of remand and no good ground is made out for
  interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136
B of the Constitution. [Para 32] [214-8-H; 215-A-C]

  •·    1.9 The submission that the scope of judicial review
   being limited, the High Court should not have interfered
   with the order of the Settlement Commission in exercise
C of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot
   be accepted. Having conceded before the High Court that
   the assessee was not pressing the point of
   maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court,
   the assessee cannot be now permitted to resile from its
   earlier stand and raise the same issue before this Court.
D Even otherwise, the manner in which assessee's
   disclosures of additional income at different stages of
   proceedings were entertained by the . Settlement
   Commission, rubbishing the objection of the
   Commissioner that the assessee had not made a full and
E true disclosure of their income in the application u/s.
   245C(1 ), leaves much to be desired. [Para 33] [215-D-F]

       1.10 It is true that details of the 'full and true'
  disclosure of income and 'the manner' in which such
F income is derived is to be given in the form of an
  annexure to the application, which is treated as
  confidential and is not to be forwarded to Commissioner
  for the purpose of his report under sub-section (1) of
  section 2450 of the Act and, therefore, prima-facie there
  seems to be some merit in the apellant's argument that
G since the Commissioner was not entitled to receive a
  copy of the annexure to the application before the
  Settlement Commission had decided to proceed with the
  application, no prejudice was caused to the
  Commissioner because of the alleged non-supply of the
H
      . AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                    191
         COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
revised annexure at a stage anterior to the making of           A
order u/s. 2450(1) of the Act. But when it is tested on the
anvil of the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, the said argument
fails as the ·revision of the annexure by itself was
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Besides, revision
of the annexure is tantamount to revision of the                B
application, not contemplated in the scheme, withholding
of the information regarding filing of revised annexure,
disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.11.41 crores as
against the income of Rs.1.94 crores, disclosed in the
annexure forming part of the application, deprived the          c
Commissioner of his right to object to the maintainability
of assessee's application on the ground that the
assessee had not made true and full disclosure of their
income in the previous application, the foundational
requirement of a valid application u/s. 245C(1) of the Act.
                                                                0
The Commissioner is entitled to costs quantified at Rs.
50,000/-. [Paras 34, 35] .[215-B-F]
     Jyotendrasinhji vs: S.I. Tripathi and Ors 1993 Supp (3)
SCC 389; Mis R.8. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand
Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (IT & WT) and Anr.        E
1989 (1) SCC 628; Shriyans Prasad Jain vs. Income Tax
Officer and Ors. 1993 Supp (4) 727; Sanghvi Reconditioners
Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors 2010 (2) SCC 733;
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri vs. Om Prakash
Mittal (2005) 2 SCC 751; Mrs. Margaret Lalita Samuel vs.        F
The lndo Commercial Bank Ltd. (1979) 2 SCC 396 - referred
to.
                     Case Law Reference:
  1993 Supp (3) sec 389 Referred to.               Para 14      G

  1989 (1) sec 628            Referred to.         Para 14
  1993 Supp (4) 727           Referred to.         Para 14
  201 o (2) sec 733           Referred to.         Para 17
                                                                H
    192       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A     (2005) 2 sec 751            Referred to.          Para 17
      (1979) 2 sec 396            Referred to.          Para 19
      (1921) 1 KB 64              Referred to.         ·Para 27
      (2000) 6 sec 550            Referred to.          Para 27
B
      1961 (2) SCR 189            Referred to.          Para 27
      1981 (1) All ER 865         Referred to.          Para 30
      (1935) All ER 259           Referred to.          Para 30
c
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    6827-6848 of 2010.

      From the Judgment and order dated 08/07/2009 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Bombay.in WP No. 57/2000 & WP.
D No. 63/2000 & WP No. 64/2000 & WP No. 65/2000 & WP No.
  6612000 & WP No. 73/2000 & WP No. 92/2000 & WP No. 93/
  2000 & WP No.161/2000 & WP No.177/2000 & WP No.192/
  2000 & WP No.193/2000 & WP No.1965/2000 & WP No.
  2191/1999 & WP No. 2742/1999 & WP No. 2778/1999 & WP
E No. 2779/1999 & WP No. 2780/1999 & WP No. 2832/1999 &
  WP No. 2833/1999 & WP No. 2834/1999 & WP No. 2835/
  1999.

        Dr. A.M. Singhvi, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh,
F   Carmichael Martin, Pallavi Srivastava, Ashish Vaid, Nitin
    Thukral, Parekh & Co., for the Appellants.

         H.P. Raval, Kunal Bahri, T.A. Khan, Amoy Nargolkar, B.V.
    Balramdass, Varun Sarin for the Respondent.

G         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          D.K. JAIN, J. 1. Leave granted.

        2. These appeals, by special leave, arise out of the
    judgment and order dated 8th July, 2009 delivered by the High
H
         AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                        193
      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
 Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of 22 writ petitions:      A
 By the impugned common judgment, the High Court has set
 aside order dated 29th January, 1999 passed by the Income
 Tax Settlement Commission (for short "the Settlement
 Commission") under Section 2450(4) of the Income Tax Act,
 1961 (for short "the Act"), and has remanded all the                B
 proceedings back to the Settlement Commission for a fresh
 consideration in the light of the observations made in the
 impugned judgment.

       3. Since the case has had a chequered history and, in fact,   C
  the present appeal is the second round of litigation between
  the parties before this Court, in order to appreciate the
  questions raised, it would be necessary to take notice of the
  foundational facts in greater detail. The Ajmera Group of firms,
  consisting of mainly 4 firms and their partners are engaged in
  the business of land development and building/construction. For    D
  the sake of convenience, facts relating to the main firm viz. M/
 s.  Ajmera Housing Corporation, Bombay (hereinafter referred
· to as "the assessee"), in which other firms and partners have
  stakes, are being noticed. These are:
                                                                     E
      In January, 1989 and again in December, 1992, searches
 were conducted at the premises of the Group under Section
 132(1) of the Act and voluminous books of account, loose
 papers and other documents were seized during the second
 search. Files, loose papers and a computer together with its        F
 hard disk were seized from the residence of one B.L. Vora,
 Accountant of Ajmera Group. In his statement B.L. Vora
 admitted that he was managing secret books and documents
 in code words as per the instructions given to him by one
 Chhotalal Ajmera, who was controlling the whole Ajmera Group.       G

     On the basis of the seized documents, assessment for the
 assessment year 1989-90 was completed, determining the total
 income at Rs.18.93 crores as against the returned income of
 Rs.70 lakhs. Similarly, assessment for the assessment year
                                                                     H
    194     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010) 10 S.C.R.


A 1990-91 was completed at Rs.4.01 crores as against the
  returned income of Rs.4 lakhs. An addition of Rs.90 lakhs was
  also made to the returned income for the assessment year
  1991-92. Prior to the completion of assessment for the said
  assessment years, an order under Section 132(5) of the Act
B was passed determining the concealed income of the group
  at Rs.200.60 crores for the assessment year 1993-94

       4. On 30th September, 1993 the assessee filed an
  application under Section 245C(1) of the Act before the
C Settlement Commission, disclosing an additional income of
  Rs.1,94,33,580/- for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-
  94, in addition to the income declared in the returns of income
  submitted by them earlier. The Settlement Commission called
  for a report from the Commissioner of Income Tax, (for short
  "the Commissioner") in terms of Section 2450(1) of the Act
0 read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission
  (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (for short "the 1987 Rules"). On 27th
  January, 1994, the Commissioner, while objecting to the
  entertainment of the application for settlement submitted by the
  assessee, as not being a full and true disclosure of their
E income, suggested that, at any rate, the income of the group
  should not be settled at less than Rs. 223.55 crores.

        5. Arguments on the question of whether or not the
  Settlement Commission should proceed with the application
F were concluded on 12th September. 1994 and orders were
  reserved. However, on 19th September, 1994, the assessee
  filed a revised settlement application containing "confidential
  annexure and related papers", declaring therein an additional
  income of Rs.11.41 crores. On 17th November, 1994, the
G Settlement Commission ·passed an order under Section
  2450(1) of the Act deciding to proceed with the application.
  Accordingly, the Settlement Commission asked the
  Commissioner to submit a further report, as required under
  Rule 8 of the 1987 Rules. The Commissioner in his elaborate
H report dated 30th August, 1995, while observing that the
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                            195
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
income disclosed by the assessee should not be treated as            A
true and correct, reported that the total unaccounted income of
the assessee was to the tune of Rs.187.09 crores. A yearwise
summary of unaccounted receipts and investments made by
the assessee, compiled on the basis of the seized books of
account and documents, was submitted with the report. It             s
appears that on 20th October, 1997, the Commissioner sent
to the Settlement Commission a general note on reconciliation
of various annexures to the earlier report, submitted on 30th
August, 1995.

     6. Hearing in the case commenced before the Settlement          C
Commission on 6th October, 1998 and various hearings took
place thereafter, but some time in the year 1999 the assessee
made a further disclosure of undisclosed income of Rs.2.76
crores, apparently during the course of hearing, as no
application/letter to that effect is on record. Hearings concluded   D
on 14th October, 1998.

     7. Vide his letter dated 6th January, 1999, ·.the
departmental representative furnished to the Settlement
Commission some clarifications regarding the taxability of           E
advance booking amounts received by the assessee. In the
said letter, the Commissioner requested the Settlement
Commission to examine the question of identifying the "so
called" persons who had booked the flats because this
information would be necessary in order to locate them. Instead      F
of responding to the said issue raised by the Commissioner,
the assessee, by their letter dated 25th January, 1999, revised
their statement of facts and offered an "ad-hoc income of Rs.1
crore for the assessment year 1992-93 and Rs.6 crores for the
assessment year 1993-94 to cover up any discrepancies and/           G
or any unforeseen contingencies". On 29th January, 1999, the
Settlement Commission passed the final order under Section
2450(4), ·determining the total income of the assessee for
assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 at Rs.42.58 crores.
Observing that the assessee had co-operated during the               H
    196       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A proceedings before it, the Settlement Commission imposed a
  "token" penalty of Rs.50 lakhs as against the minimum leviable
  penalty of Rs.562.87 lakhs, as per its own assessment. The
  Settlement Commission also granted immunity to the assessee
  against prosecution and in respect of other penalties under the
B Act.

        8. Dis-satisfied with the order by the Settlement
  Commission, the Commissioner challenged it by preferring a
  writ petition in the High Court of Bombay. Holding that the
C Settlement Commission had not given any finding as to whether
  there was full and true disclosure of the income by the
  assessee, by a strongly worded order, dated 28th July, 2000,
  the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order.
   It would be useful to extract the relevant observations in the
  judgment:
D
          "In the instant case, if we look at the facts in the light of
          the legal canvass, in our opinion, the Commission at the
          very inception ought to have addressed itself on the
          question as to whether the application was in compliance
E         with the first and foremost requirement of Section 245-
          C( 1). The Commission ought to have noticed that in the
          application made under Sectio]l 245-C(1) disclosure was
          to the extent of Rs. 1.94 crores. The report of the
          Commissioner as envisaged under Section 245-0(1) was
F         called for and submitted and thereafter just before the order
          could be passed under Section 245-0(1) the assessee
          respondent No. 2 declared additional income of Rs. 11.41
          crores. At this stage itself, it was obligatory on the part of
          the Settlement Commission to apply his mind to the issue
          as to whether full and true disclosure of the income and
G
          the manner in which it was derived, has been made or not.
          We find no material in the order dated 17.11.1994 in this
          behalf. Had the Settlement Commission applied its mind
          to the said facts and had addressed itself on this aspect
          of the matter regarding subsequent disclosure of Rs. 11.41
H
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                          197
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
    crores and had it dealt with the question of maintainability    A
    of application under Section 245C(1 ), then it would not
    have been open for this Court to sit in appeal over the
    finding recorded by the Settlement Commission in this
    behalf.
                                                                    B




    On the fact of the record, we find fault with decision taken
    by the Settlement Commission to allow the application to        c
    be proceeded with without determining the basic facts on
    which further jurisdiction of the Tribunal depended. We,
    therefore, find that the said order of the Settlement
    Commission suffers from non-application of mind of the
    facts available on record."                                     o
Dealing with the grievance of the Commissioner that he was
not apprised of the revised settlement application filed by the
assessee on 19th September, 1'994, i.e. after the hearing on
the question of whether or not the assessee's application is to
be proceeded with in terms of Section 2450(1) of the Act had        E
concluded, disclosing additional income of Rs. 11.41 crores,
the High Court observed that order dated 17th November, 1994
was bad, illegal and ab-initio void being in breach of principles
of natural justice. Accordingly, the High Court held that all
subsequent proceedings and orders passed therein would be           F
of no consequence and they had to be set aside because the
subsequent order under Section 2450(4) of the Act could
survive only subject to the validity of the order required to be
passed under Section 2450(1) of the Act. Even on the merits
of the quantification of the total undisclosed income of the        G
assessee, the High Court held that the final order was clearly
perverse and could not stand the scrutiny of law. Finally
declaring order dated 17th November, 1994 as ab-initio void
and quashing order dated 29th January, 1999, the High Court
remitted the proceedings back to the Settlement Commission,         H
    198       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A   keeping all the questions open, with a direction to decide the
    application afresh in accordance with law.

      9. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the
  assessee challenged the same before this Court. By order
8 dated 11th July, 2006, this Court set asid~ the order of the High
  Court solely on the ground that the second report submitted by
  the Commissioner on 20th October, 1997, estimattng the
  undisclosed income at Rs. 42.5 crores, which approximately
  coincided with the figures arrived at by the Settlement
  Commission, and accepted by the assessee, had not been
C taken into consideration by the High Court, which fact was also
  conceded by learned counsel appearing for the revenue. The
  special leave petition was disposed of in the following terms:

           "Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
D         dispute, the findings recorded on the first report or the
          effect of not recording a finding on the second report, we
          set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to
          the High Court for a fresh decision, leaving the parties to
          raise all points including the point raised before us on
E         behalf of the assessee that the High Court should not have
          entertained the revenue's writ petitions in exercise of its
          discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
          Constitution of India, and the stand taken by the revenue
          that the application filed by the assessee for settlement
          before the Settlement Commission was not entertainable
          as the assessee had not made, inter alia, true and
          complete disclosure of its undisclosed income, as
          provided under the law. All contentions of the parties are
          left open to be agitated before the High Court."
G                                        (Emphasis supplied by us)

       10. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the order passed by
  this Court, the matter was heard afresh by the High Court. By
  the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has again
H set aside Settlement Commission's order dated 29th January,
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                            199
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.)
1999 and has remitted the matter back to it for fresh                 A
adjudication, observing thus:

   "In view of the facts and the legal position noted above,
   even though we find that the respondents had not made
   full and true disclosure of their income while making
                                                                      8
   applications under Section 245C, it would not be proper
   to set aside the proceeding. However, at the same time,
   the Commission appears to have misdirected itself on
   several important aspects while passing the final order.
   The Settlement Commission had not supplied the annexure            C
   dated 19.9.1994 declaring additional income of
   Rs.11.41 crore and thus, due opportunity was not given to
   the Revenue to place (sic) its stand properly. Huge amount
   of unexplained expenses, unexplained loans and
   unexplained surplus, total of which is more than Rs.14
   crore, was not taken into consideration while passing the          D
   final order. Thirdly, the Settlement Commission has
   imposed token penalty of Rs.50 lakh while· in its own
   assessment leviable penalty would be 562.87 (sic
   Rs.562.87). In fact the amounts, which were not taken into
   consideration while assessing the total undisclosed                E
    income, are also taken into consideration, the amount of
    leviable penalty may be much more. Taking into
    consideration the multiple disclosures and the fact that
    the respondents had failed to make true and full
    disclosure initially as well as at the time of second             F
    disclosure, we do not find any justifiable reasons to reduce
    or waive the amount of penalty so drastically. Taking into
    consideration all these circumstances, in our considered
    opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the
    final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to            G
    remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for
    hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law.
    Facts and circumstances noted in respe<?t of writ petition
    no. 2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ
    petitions and, therefore, it will be necessary that the final     H
    200      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A         orders passed in all these proceedings should be set
          aside."

                                                (Emphasis added)

  Thus, the remand of the case by the High Court to the Settlement
B Commission was confined only to the question of determination
  of total income, penalty etc. and the Settlement Commission
  was not required to go into the question of maintainability of
  application under Section 245C(1) of the Act.

c        11. Still being dissatisfied, all the applicants before the
    Settlement Commission are before us in these appeals.

      12. We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior
  counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri H.P. Raval,
  learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the
D Commissioner .

         .13. Dr. Singhvi strenuously urged that the impugned order
    is clearly fallacious as the High Court has again failed to
    consider the two reports submitted by the Commissioner on
E   30th August, 1995 and 20th October, 1997 in their proper
    perspective, despite specific direction by this Court vide order
    dated 11th July, 2006. Refuting the stand of the Commissioner
    that undisclosed income determined in her report was
    Rs.187.20 crores and not Rs.42.58 crores, learned counsel
F   referred us to several documents, forming part of the revised
    confidential annexure, in particular to the last page of
    Commissioner's report dated 30th August, 1995 wherein,
    according to the learned counsel, while referring to Annexure-
    Vll of the revised annexure, the Commissioner has determined
G   undisclosed income at Rs.42.58 crores. It was thus, asserted
    that the High Court has gone wrong in equating "unaccounted
    income" with "unaccounted receipts" and payments of
    Rs.187.20 crores. On the basis of the very same annexure,
    learned counsel also attempted to demonstrate that the revised
H   annexure, disclosing undeclared income of Rs.11.41 crores
        AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                        201
     COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
was, in fact, in the knowledge of the Commissioner before she        A
had submitted her report, whereafter the Settlement
Commission had decided to proceed with the assessee's
application. It was pleaded that the finding of the High Court
that the Commissioner had not been supplied with the annexure
filed on 19th September, 1994 declaring additional income of         B
Rs.11.41 crores and thus, due opportunity was not given to the
revenue to put forth its stand properly, was erroneous and,
therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside on this
ground alone.

      14. Next, it was urged by learned senior counsel for the
                                                                     c
assessee that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ
petition filed by the Commissioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution against the order passed by the Settlement
Commission because: (i) in terms of Section 2450(1) of the
Act, the order made by the Settlement Commission under sub-          D
section (4) of the said Section is conclusive as to the matters
stated therein and no. matter covered by such order can be
reopened in any proceedings under the Act or under any other
law for the time being in force and (ii) in the absence of any
illegality in the procedure followed by the Settlement               E
Commission, the power of judicial review could not be
exercised by the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact
recorded by the Settlement Commission. To buttress his
proposition that judicial review is concerned only with the
 decision making process and not with the final decision, learned    F
counsel referred us to the decisions of this Court in
Jyotendrasinhji Vs. S.I. Tripathi & Ors. 1, Mis R.B. Shreeram
 Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das Vs. Settlement
 Commission (IT & WT) & Anr. 2 and Shriyans Prasad Jain Vs.
 Income Tax Officer & Ors. 3 .                                       G

       15. It was also argued by the learned counsel that since
1.    1993 Supp (3) sec 389.
2.    (1989) 1 sec 628.
3.    1993 Supp (4) sec 121.                                         H
    202     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A by operation of Section 2450( 1) of the Act read with Rule 6 of
  the 1987 Rules, annexure, statements and other documents
  accompanying such annexure were not to be supplied to the
  Commissioner before the Settlement Commission had decided
  to proceed with assessee's application, no prejudice was
B caused to the Commissioner by the filing of revised annexure
  by the assessee on 19th September, 1994.

       16. Shri Raval, on the other hand, supporting the impugned
  judgment, submitted that the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does
C not envisage revision of the application filed by the assessee
  under Section 245C(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Settlement
  Commission committed serious procedural irregularity in
  permitting the assessee to file revised annexure, declaring
  higher undisclosed income. Additionally, the learned counsel
  argued that acceptance of such annexure, after the conclusion
D of hearing on 12th September, 1994, behind the back of the
  departmental representative and after the Settlement
  Commission had reserved its order under Section 2450(1),
  was improper and clearly in breach of principles of natural·
  justice and, therefore, the order passed by the Settlement
E Commission on 17th November, 1994, deciding to proceed with
  the application deserves to be set aside.

        17. Learned counsel contended that revision of
  undisclosed income from Rs.1.94 crores to Rs.11.41 crores,
F as projected in the revised annexure and thereafter the two
  voluntary disclosures during the course of hearing and finally
  acceptance of Settlement Commission's order determining
  total income at Rs.42.58 crores without demur shows that the
  disclosure made by the assessee in their application under
G Section 245C of the Act was neither full nor true and, therefore,
  the Settlement Commission ought to have rejected the
  application for settlement. It was pleaded that the piecemeal
  disclosures, in particular the revision of the statement of facts
  vide assessee's letter dated 25th January, 1999, offering an
  ad hoc income of Rs.1 crore for the assessment year 1992-
H
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                            203
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
93 and Rs.6 crores for the assessment year 1993-94 to cover           A
up "any discrepancies and/or any unforeseen contingencies" is
not c;ontemplated in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A and,
therefore, the final order passed by the Settlement Commission
on the basis of revised statement of facts and annexures is void
ab initio. In support of the submission that a full and true          B
disclosure of income in the application is a sine qua non for
an application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, learned
couns.el placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in
 Sanghvi Reconditioners Private Limited Vs. Union of India &
 Ors. 4 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri Vs. Om             c
 Prakash Mittal5 .

      18. Responding to the contention urged on behalf of the
assessee regarding entertainment of writ petition by the High
Court, learned counsel submitted that having conceded before
the High Court that the assessee was not pressing the point of        D
tenability of the writ petition, the assessee is estopped from
raising the said issue before this Court.'

     19. Lastly, relying on the decision of this Court in Mrs.
Margaret Lalita Samuel Vs. The lndo Commercial Bank Ltd. 6 ,          E
learned counsel for, the Commissioner pleaded that since the
High Court has merely remanded the case back to the
Settlement Commission for fresh determination of income and
penalty etc., this Court may not like to exercise its discretionary
power under Article 136 of the Constitution.                          F

     20. Before embarking upon the rival contentions, it would
be instructive to refer to the scheme of Chapter XIX-A of the
Act. The Chapter was inserted in the Act by the Taxation Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1975, pursuant to the recommendations of
the Justice Wanchoo Committee Report. The recommendation,             G
contained in Chapter 2 of the report under the caption "Black
4.   (2010) 2 sec 733.
5.   (2005) 2 sec 751.
6.   (1979) 2 sec 396.
                                                                      H
        204       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


    A  Money and Tax Evasion'', was for setting up of a statutory
       settlement machinery, whereby a tax evader could make a clean
       breast of his past illegitimate affairs, discharge his tax liability
       as determined by the body so established and thus, buy
       quittance for himself and in the process accelerate recovery of
    B taxes by the State, although less than what may have been
       recovered after protracted litigation and recovery proceedings.
       The said Chapter, with some amendments, envisages
       settlement of complex tax disputes and grant of immunity from
     · criminal proceedings by a Settlement Commission constituted
    c in this regard. The Chapter sets out in detail the mechanics of
       application, investigation, consideration, hearing and disposal
       of the application.

            21. Proceedings under the said Chapter commence on the
      filing of an application by an assessee under Section 245C(1)
    D of the Act, which reads as follows:-

              "245-C. Application for settlement of cases.-(1) An
              assessee may, at any stage of a.case relating to him, make
              an application in such form and in such manner as may
    E         be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of
              his income which has not been disclosed before the
              Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has
              been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable
              on such income and such other particulars as may be
    F         prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the
              case settled and any such application shall be disposed
              of in the manner hereinafter provided:



    G A bare reading of the provision would reveal that besides such
      other particulars, as may be prescribed, in an application for
      settlement, the assessee is required to disclose: (i) a full and
      true disclosure of the income which has not been disclosed
      before the assessing officer; (ii) the manner in which such
    H income has been derived and (iii) the additional amount of

>
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                               205
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
income tax payable on such income.                                       A

     22. It is clear that disclosure of "full and true" particulars of
undisclosed income and "the manner'' in which such income
had been derived are the pre-requisites for a valid application
under Section 245C(1) of the Act. Additionally, the amount of            8
income tax payable on such undisclosed income is to be
computed and mentioned in the application. It needs little
emphasis that Section 245C(1) of the Act mandates "full and
true" disclosure of the particulars of undisclosed income and
"the manner'' in which such income was derived and, therefore,
unless the Settlement Commission records its satisfaction on             C
this aspect, it will not have the jurisdiction to pass any order on
the matter covered by the application.

     23. Section 2450(1) lays down the procedure to be
followed after the receipt of the application under Section              D
245C(1) of the Act. It reads thus:

     "Procedure on receipt of an application under s.ection
     245C. 2450. (1) On receipt of an application under section
     245C, the Settlement Ccmmission shall call for a report             E
     from the Commissioner and on the basis of the materials
     contained in such report and having regard to the nature
     and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the
     investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission
     may, by order, allow the application to be proceeded with
                                                                         F
     or reject the application:

      Provided that an application shall not be rejected under
      this sub-section unless an opportunity has been given to
    · the applicant of being heard:·
                                                                         G




     (3) Where an application is allowed to be proceeded with
     under sub-section (1), the Settlement Commission may                H
                                  /
    206        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         call for the relevant records from the Commissioner and
          after examination of such records, if the Settlement
          Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry or
          investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the
          Commissioner to make or cause to be made such further
B         enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters
          covered by the application and any other matter relating
          to the case.·

          (4) After examination of the records and the report of the
          Commissioner, received under sub-section (1 ), and the
c         report, if any,· of the Commissioner received under sub-
          section (3), and after giving,.an opportunity to the applicant
          and to the Commissionert<nbe heard, either in person or
          through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and
          after examining such further evidence as may be placed
D         before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission
          may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass
          such ori::ler as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the
          application and any other matter relating to the ·case not
          covered by the application but referred to in the report of
E         the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section
          (3)."

          24. Since Rules 6 and 8 of the 1987 Rules have some
    bearing on the issues involved, for the sake of ready reference,
F   these are extracted below:

          "6. Commissioner's report etc., under section 2450
          (1 ).-On receipt of a settlement application, a copy of the
          said application (other than the Annexure and the
          statements and other documents accompanying such
G         Annexure) shall be forwarded by the Commission to the
          Commissioner with the direction to furnish his report under
          sub-section (1) of section 2450 within thirty days of the
          receipt of the said copy of the application by him or within
          such further period as the Commission may specify."
H
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                             207
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
    "8. Commissioner's further report.-Where an order is               A
    passed by the Commission under sub-section (1) of
    section 2450 allowing the settlement application to be
    proceeded with, copy of the Annexure to the said
    application, together with a copy of each of the statements
    and other documents accompanying such annexure, shall              B
    be forwarded to the Commissioner along with a copy of
    the said order with the direction that the Commissioner
    shall furnish a further report within ninety days of the receipt
    of the said Annexure (including the statements and other
    documents accompanying it or within such further period            c
    as the Commission may specify."

    25. It will also be useful to extract the rele.vant portions of
Form (No.348), prescribed for making an application under
Section 245C(1) of the Act:
                                                                       D
                         "[FORM NO. 348]

                     [See rule~ 44C and 44CA]

        Form of application fo r settlement of cases under
          section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961                  E




                                                                       F

             10.   Particulars of the issues to be settled, nature
                   and circumstances of the case and
                   complexities of the investigation involved
                   [See Note 7]                                        G

             11.   Full and true disclosure of income which has
                   not been disclosed before the Assessing
                   Officer, the manner in which such income has
                   been derived and the additional amount of
                                                                       H
    208       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A                       income-tax payable on such income [See
                        Notes 9 and 1OJ


                                                            Signed
B                                                        (Applicant)
          Notes:



          7.    Full details of issues for which application for
c         settlement is made, the nature and circumstances of the
          case and complexities of the investigation involved must
          be indicated against item 10. Where the application
          relates to more than one assessment year, these details
          should be furnished for each assessment year.
D


          9.   The additional amount of income-tax payable on the
          income referred to in item 11 should be calculated in the
E         manner laid down in sub-sections (1A) to (1 D) of section
          245C .

          .10.   The details referred to in item 11 shall be given in
           the Annexure to this application."

F                                        [Emphasis supplied by us]

       26. The procedure laid down in Section 2450 of the Act,
  contemplates that on receipt of the application under Section
  245C(1) of the Act, the Settlement Commission is required to
  forward a copy of the application filed in the prescribed form
G (No. 348), containing full details of issues for which application
  for settlement is made, the nature and circumstances of the
  case and complexities of the investigation involved, save and
  except the annexures, referred to in item.No. 11 of the form and
  to call for report from the Commissioner. The Commissioner
H
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                           209
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]

is obliged to furnish such report within a period of 45 days from   A
the date of communication by the Settlement Commission.
Thereafter, the Settlement Commission, on the basis of the
material contained in the said report and having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and/or complexity of the
investigation involved therein may by an order, allow the           B
application to be proceeded with or reject the application. After
an order under Section 2450(1) is made, by the Settlement
Commission, Rule 8 of the 1987 Rules mandates that a copy
of the annexure to the application, together with a copy of each
of the statements and other documents accompanying such             c
annexure shall be forwarded to the Commissioner and further
report shall be called from the Commissioner. The Settlement
Commission can also .direct the Commissioner to make further
enquiry and investigations in the matter and furnish his report.
Thereafter, after examining the record, Commissioner's report
                                                                    0
and such further evidence that may be laid before it or obtained
by it .. the Settlement Commission is required tq pass an order
as it thinks fit on the matter covered by the application and in
every matter relating to the case not covered by the application
and referred to in the report of the Commissioner under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (3) of the said Section. It bears        E
repetition that as per the scheme of the Chapter, in the first
instance, the report of the Commissioner is based on the bare
information furnished by the assessee against item No. 10 of
the prescribed form, and the material gathered by the revenue
by way of its own investigation. It is evident from the language    F
 of Section 245C(1) of the Act that the report of the
 Commissioner is primarily on the nature of the case and the
 complexities of the investigation, as the annexure filed in
support of the disclosure of undisclosed income against item
No. 11 of the form and the manner in which such income had          G
been derived are treated as confidential and are not supplied
 to the Commissioner. It is only after the Settlement Commission
 has decided to proceed with the application that a copy of the
annexure to the said application and other statements and
 documents accompanying such annexure, containing the               H
    210       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010) 10 S.C.R.


A aforesaid information are required to be furnished to the
  Commissioner. In our opinion even when the Settlement
  Commission decides to proceed with the application, it will not
  be denuded of its power to examine as to whether in. his
  application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, the assessee has
B made a full and true disclosure of his undisclosed income. We
  feel that the report(s) of the Commissioner and other documents
  coming on record at different stages of the consideration of the
  case, before or after the Settlement Commission has decided
  to proceed with the application would be most germane to
c determination of the said question. It is plain from the language
  of sub-section (4) of Section 2450 of the Act that the jurisdiction
  of the Settlement Commission to pass such orders as it may
  think fit is confined to the matters covered by the application
  and it can extend only to such matters which are referred to in
  the report of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-
0
  section (3) of the said Section. A "full and true" disclosure of
  inqome, which had not been previously c;lisclosed by the
  assessee, being a pre-condition for a valid application under
  Section 245C(1) of.the Act, the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does
  not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the
E application against item No. 11 of the form. Moreover, if an
  assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he
  would be making a fresh application in relation to the same
  case by withdrawing the earlier application. In this regard,
  Section 245C(3) of the Act which prohibits the withdrawal of
F an application once made under sub-section (1) of the said
  Section is instructive in as much as it manifests that an
  assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any
  stage during the proceedings. Therefore, by revising the
  application, the applicant would be achieving something
G indirectly what he cannot otherwise achieve directly and in the
  process rendering the provision of sub-sect~on (3) of Section
  245C of the Act otiose and meaningless. In. our opinion, the
  scheme of said Chapter is clear and admits no ambiguity.

H         27. It is trite law tha~ a taxing statute is to be construed
         AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                           211
      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
 strictly. In a taxing Act one has.to look merely at what is said in     A
 the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax.
  Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no
 room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. (See:
  Cape Brandy_ Syndicate Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners 7
  and Federation of A.P. Chambers of Commerce & Industry                 8
  & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Ors.8). In interpreting a taxing statute,
  the Court must look squarely at the words of the statute and
· interpret them. Considerations of hardship, injustice and equity
  are entirely out of place in interpreting a taxing statute. (Also
  see: Commissioner of Sa/es Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs .. The Modi           C
  Sugar Mills Ltd.) 9•

      28. As afore-stated, in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there
 is no stipulation for reyision of an application filed under Section
 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that
 determination of income by the Settlement Commission .has               D
 necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the
 application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form.

       29. Having noticed the scheme of Chapter XIX-A of the
 Act, we shall now advert to the facts at hand and evaluate the          E
 rival submissions.

      30. Before addressing the other issues, at the outset, we
 record our disapproval with the view of the High Court that it
 would not be proper to set aside the proceedings before the
 Settlement Commission even though it was convinced that the             F
 assessee had not made full and true disclosure of their income
 while making application under Section 245C of the Act. As
 stated above, in its earlier order dated 28th July, 2000 while
 declaring order dated 17th November, 1994, as ab initio void
 and setting aside order dated 29th January, 1999, the High              G
 Court had remitted the case to the Settlement Commission to

 7.    (1921) 1 KB 64.
 8.    c2000) 6 sec 550.
 9.    1961 (2) SCR 189                                                  H
    212       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A decide the entire matter afresh, including the question of
  maintainability of the application under Section 245C{1) of the
  Act. The said order of the High Court was put in issue before
  this Court and was set aside vide order dated 11th July, 2006
  and the case was remanded back to the High Court for fresh
8 consideration. Nevertheless, all points raised by the parties,
  including the plea of the revenue that the application filed by
  the assessee before the Settlement Commission was not
  maintainable as the assessee had not made a full and true
  disclosure of their undisclosed income were kept open. The
C High Court addressed itself on the said issue and found that
  the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their
  income while making the application under Section 245C{1) of
  the Act, yet did not find it proper to set aside the proceedings
  on that ground. Having recorded the said adverse finding on
  the very basic requirem~nt of a valid application under Section
D 245C{1) of the Act, the High Court's opinion that it would not
  be P,roper to set aside the proceedings is clf:larly erroneous.
  The High Court appears to have not appreciated the object and
  scope of the scheme of settlement under Chapter XIX-A of the
  Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to notice a few
E illuminating observations in W T Ramsay Ltd. Vs. Inland
  Revenue Commissioners 10, which was considered to be a
  turning point in the interpretation of tax laws in England and was
  a significant departure from Inland Revenue Commissioners
   Vs. Duke of Westminster11 dictum, noted in the passage
F extracted below :-

          "Given that a document or transaction is genuine, the court
          cannot go behind it to some supposed underlying
          substance. This is the well-known principle of Inland
          Revenue Comrs v Duke of Westminster (1936) AC 1,
G
          [1935) All ER Rep 259, 19 Tax Gas 490. This is a cardinal
          principle but it must not be overstated or over-extended ..
          While obliging the court to accept documents or
    10. (1981) 1 All ER 865.
H 11. [1936] AC 1, [1935] All ER Rep 259.
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                             213
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
    transactions, found to be genuine, as such, it does not           A
    compel the court to look at a document or a transaction in
    blinkers, isolated from any context to which it properly
    belongs. If it can be seen that a document or transaction
    was intended to have effect as part of a nexus or series
    of transactions, or as an ingredient of a wider transaction       B
    intended as a whole, there is nothing in the doctrine to
    prevent it being so regarded; to do so is not to prefer form
    to substance, or substance to form. It is the task of the court
    to ascertain the legal nature of any transactions to which
    it is sought to attach a tax or a tax consequence and if that     c
    emerges from a series or combination of transactions,
     intended to operate as such, it is that series or combination
    which may be regarded."

      31. We are convinced that, in the instant case, the
disclosure of Rs.11.41 crores as additional undisclosed income D
in the revised annexure, filed on 19th September, 1994 alone
was sufficient to establish that the application made by the
assessee on 30th September, 1993 under Section 245C(1) of
the Act could not be entertained as it did not contain a "true
and full" disclosure of their undisclosed income and "the' E
manner" in which such income had been derived. However, we
say nothing more on this aspect of the matter as the
Commissioner, for reasons best known to him, has chosen not
to challenge this part of the impugned order.
                                                                 F
      32. We shall now deal with the principal argument of
 learned counsel for the assessee that the High Court had failed
to consider, in their correct perspective the two reports
submitted by the Commissioner on 30th August, 1995 and 20th
October, 1997, in as much as, in the latter report the G
Commissioner had himself computed the undi~closed income
at Rs. 42.52 crores, which was equivalent to the amount finally
determined by the Settlement Commission. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel, there w~s no justification for
the remand of the case back to the Settlement Commission.
                                                                 H
    214      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A At the first blush, the argument appears to be attractive but on
  a deeper scrutiny, it does not merit acceptance. In the impugned
  order, on a critical: examination of the order passed by the
  Settlement Commission with reference to the said two reports,
  in particular the reconciliation report submitted by the
B Commissioner on 20th October, 1997, estimating the
  undisclosed income at Rs. 187.20 crores, the High Court had
  found that only that part of the report dated 20th October, 1997,
  which dealt with "on money" was highlighted before this Court,
  while other incomes, investments, receipts or payments were
c not covered in that part of the statement. The High Court also
  observed that the manner in which expenses had been shown,
  created a serious doubt about the expenditure of Rs.734.02
  lakhs. The High Court has also noted that the Settlement
  Commission had not properly dealt with the amount of
  Rs.911.51 lakhs on account of unexplained expenses, loans
0
  and surplus amount of Rs.488.98 lakhs, while assessing the total
  income and thus an arriount of Rs.14.49 crores had been left
  out while determining the undisclosed income of the assessee.
  Besides, the High Court has also commented that having come
E to the conclusion that the pehalty leviable worked out to be Rs.
  562.87 lakhs, the Settlement Commission had no reason for
  levying a token penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was not even 10%
  of the minimum leviable penalty. Ultimately the High Court
  observed that : (i) since the Settlement Commission had not
  supplied annexure filed on 19th September, 1994, declaring
F additional income of Rs.11.41 crores, due opportunity had not
  been given to the revenue to place its stand properly; (ii) huge
  amount of unexplained expenses, unexplained loans and
  unexplained surplus, total of which was more than Rs.14 crores,
  was not taken into consideration while passing the final order
G and (iii) the Settlement Commission had imposed token penalty
  of Rs.50 lakhs while on its own assessment leviable penalty
  would have been Rs.562.87 lakhs. Further, if the amount which
  had not been taken into consideration while assessing the total
  undisclosed income was to be taken into account, the amount
H
     AJMERA HOUSING CORPORATION v.                           215
  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [D.K. JAIN, J.]
of leviable penalty would have been much more. In light of these    A
facts, the High Court formed the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the
Settlement Commission and to remand the case back to it for
fresh adjudication on assessee's application. Bearing in mind
the afore-stated factual position, as emanating from the            B·
material on record, we find itdifficult to persuade ourselves to
agree with learned counsel for the assessee that there was no
justification for order of remand by the High Court and that the
order passed by the Settlement Commission should have been
 affirmed. We are satisfied that under the given scenario, the      c
 High Court was correct in making the order of remand and no
good ground is made out for interference in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

       33. As regards the argument of learned counsel for the
 assessee that the scope of judicial review being limited, the      D
 Hig~ Court should not have interfered with the order of the
.Settlement Commission in exercise of its p"ower under Article
 226 of the Constitution, in ·our opinion, the argument is stated
 to be rejected. Having conceded before the High Court that the
 assessee was not pressing the point of maintainability of the      E
 writ petition before the High Court, the assessee cannot be now
 permitted to resile from its earlier stand and raise the same
  issue before us. Even otherwise, as stated above, we have no
  hesitation in observing that the manner in which assessee's
·disclosures of additional income at different stages of            F
  proceedings were entertained by the Settlement Commission,
  rubbishing the objection of the Commissioner that the assessee
  had not made a full and true disclosure of their income in the
  application under Section 245C(1) of the Act, leaves much to
~desi~.                                                             G
      34. We may now evaluate the submission of learned
counsel for the assessee that since the Commissioner was not
entitled to receive a .copy of the annexure to the application
before the Settlement Commission had decided to proceed
                                                                    H
    216       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A with the application, no prejudice was caused to the
    Commissioner because of the alleged non-supply of the revised
    annexure at a stage anterior to the making of order under
    Section 2450( 1) of the Act. It is true that details of the "full and
    true" disclosure of income and "the manner" in which such
B income is derived is to be given in the form of an annexure to
    the application, which is treated as confidential and is not to
    be forwarded to Commissioner for the purpose of his report
    under sub-section (1) of Section 2450 of the Act and therefore,
    apparently there is substance in the contention. 6ut when the
c argument is tested on the anvil of the scheme of Chapter XIX-
    A, the revision of the annexure by itself was prejudicial to the
    interest of the revenue. Apart from the fact, as explained above,
    revision of the annexure is tantamount to revision of the
    application, not contemplated in the scheme, withholding of the
    information regarding filing of revised annexure, disclosing
0
    undisclosed income of Rs.11.41 crores as against the income
  . of Rs.1.94 crores, disclosed in the annexu.re forming part of the
  . application, deprived the Commissioner of his right to object
    to the maintainability of assessee's application on the ground
    that the assessee had not made true and full disclosure of their
E income in the previous application, the foundational
    requirement of a valid application under Section 245C(1) of the
    Act. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in rejecting the
    a~ume~.                                                        ~

F        35. For all the. reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit
    in these appeals, which are dismissed accordingly. The
    Commissioner will be entitled to costs, quantified at Rs.50,000/
    -.
G N.J.                                            Appeals dismissed.