Holding

The Income Tax Settlement Commission may, upon a revenue application under Section 245D(6), declare a settlement void if it is subsequently found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, and a full and true disclosure is a mandatory pre‑condition for settlement.

Summary

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission that had treated a loan claimed by O.P. Mittal as an advance and refused to declare the settlement void. The revenue argued that the settlement was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and that the Commission could be moved under Section 245D(6) to set it aside, while the assessee contended that the settlement order was final under Section 2451 and could not be reviewed. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commission retains the power to declare a settlement void if it is subsequently found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, and that the revenue may invoke this power under Section 245D(6). The Court emphasized that a full and true disclosure of undisclosed income is a statutory prerequisite for invoking the Commission’s jurisdiction. It clarified that the conclusive nature of a settlement order under Section 2451 does not strip the Commission of its power to examine fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Commission for fresh consideration, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Income Tax Settlement Commission can set aside a settlement order on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation under Section 245D(6).
Whether the revenue, and not only the Commission suo motu, may move the Commission to invoke the power under Section 245D(6).
What constitutes a 'full and true disclosure' of income under Section 245C for a settlement application.
Whether the conclusive effect of a settlement order under Section 2451 bars the Commission from revisiting the order on grounds of fraud.
Whether the Commission’s examination of the genuineness of the alleged loans amounts to a prohibited review of its earlier order.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 139, s. 143, s. 144, s. 145, s. 147, s. 245, s. 2450, s. 2451, s. 245A, s. 245B, s. 245C, s. 245D, s. 245F, s. 245V

Subjects

Income Tax Settlement CommissionSection 245fraudmisrepresentationfull and true disclosuresettlement ordervoid orderrevenueapplication under Section 245Ctax law interpretation

Judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALPAIGURI A
v.
OM PRAKASH MITT AL

FEBRUARY 22, 2005

[MRS. RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B

Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 245 :

Income Tax Settlement Commission-Order .ofSettlement-Section 245-
Scope and ambit of-Held: Foundation for settlement is filing ofan application C
by assessee at any stage of a case-Full and true disclosure of the income is
statutory requirement for consideration of the application provided additional
tax on the undisclosed income not to exceed the prescribed limit-Merely
because provisions under Section 245(I) provides that order of settlement is
conclusive it does not take away the power of the Commission/Revenue to D
decide whether the settlement was obtained by fraud/misrepresentation-Mis-
representation/fraud implies no true and fair disclosure of the income, which
is against the legislative intent-Since Revenue established that the order was
obtained by misrepresentation, Commission could decide the issue afresh-
Directions issued-Interpretation of Statutes.
E
Settlement Commission's power of settlement-Scope of-Discussed

Order vis-a-vis assessment-Distinction between.

Words and Phrases :
F
'case'-Meaning of in the context of Section 245A(b) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961.

Respondent-assessee filed an application for settlement in terms of
Section 245C of the Income Tax Act before the Income Tax Settlement
Commission. Assessee claimed to have received certain amount, as loan G
as disclosed by him in the application. The Settlement Commissioner
passed an order treating the loan amount as advance. The order was
challenged by Revenue Authorities by filing a petition under Section
2450(6) of the Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner. Hence the

263 H

•
' '
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2005] 2 S.C.R.

A present appeal filed by the Revenue.
It was contended by the Revenue that the·application filed by them
was not really for review; that there was no question of the subsequent
Bench sitting in appeal over the earlier Bench's decision; that the
jurisdiction under Section 2450(6) of the Act is exercisable when it is
B subsequently found by the Commission that the settlement had been
obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts; that the investigating
officer had stated that the alleged money lenders categorically denied to
have advanced any loan; that there was inherent improbability in the
assessee's stand that seven persons/money lenders would keep huge sums
c of money and would give money on the same day by c~sh; that since there
was no assessment, question of furnishing certificates about assessment
from unconnected persons, is sufficient to show misrepresentation of facts;
and that no returns of income were filed by the lenders upto relevant time.

Assessee submitted th.at finality is attached to the order passed under
D Section 2450 (4) in terms of Section 2451 of the Act; that the order was
obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts; that the Revenue cannot •r-
initiate any proceedings in terms of Section 2450(6) of the Act; that on
mere unsubstantiated allegation regarding lack of capacity to advance
loans, alleged inherent improbabilities, or the authorities' giving a different
version after having issued certificates, there is no scope for coming to
E the conclusion that there was any fraud or misrepresentation of facts.
Thus, the Commission had rightly refused to accept the prayer made by
the Revenue as it would have amounted to review of the earlier order and
in essence would have amounted to the subsequent Bench sitting in appeal
over the decision of the earlier Bench.
F
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. The Income Tax Settlement Commission is not bound
to proceed with any application filed under Section 245C of the Income
Tax Act, as is clear from Section 2450 of the Act. An assessee cannot
G approach the Commission for settlement of his case in respect of an income
which has already been disclosed as contemplated is in the nature of
voluntary disclosure of concerned income. The Commission's power of
settlement has to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Though the Commission has sufficient elbowroom in assessing the income
of the applicant and it cannot make any order with terms of settlement
H
C.l.T. 1· O.P. l'vllTT/\L 265

which would be in conflict with the mandatory provisions of tl1e Act. The A
object of the legislature in introducing Section 245C is to see that
protracted proceedings before the authorities or in Courts are avoided by
resorting to settlement of cases. In this process an assessee cannot expect
any reduction in amounts statutorily payable under the Act.
1272-H; 273-A; 275-B, G-HJ B
1.2. It is a statutory requirement that a condition has to be
incorporated in the order passed under sub-section ( 4) specifying that
settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Commission that
it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The decision
whether the order has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts C
is that of the Commission. But it is not a requirement that the Commission
must suo motu initiate the action. If the revenue has material to show that
the order wall obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts it certainly
can move the Commission for decision on that issue. Otherwise, even if in
a given case there is material in abundance to establish that the order was
obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, yet the void order would D
continue to be operative because of the fortuitous circumstance that the
Co.mmission does not suo motu initiate the proceeding. [276-B-C-D)

1.3. Merely because Section 2451 of the Act provides that the order
of Settlement is conclusive it does not take away the power of the
Commission to decide whether the settlement order had been obtained by E
fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Any other interpretation would render
sub-sectiOn (6) otiose. [276-D-EI

2.1. The foundation for settlement is an application which assessee
can file at any stage of a case relating to him in such form and in such . F
manner as is prescribed. [276-GJ

2.2. The fundamental requirement of the application under Section
245C is that full and true dis.closure of the income has to be made, along
with the manner in which such income was derived. 1276-H; 277,..Al
G
2.3. The Commission exercises power in respect of income which was
not disclosed before the authorities in any proceeding, but are disclosed
in the petition. It is not that any amount of undisclosed income can be
brought to the notice of the Commission in the said petition. Commission
exercises jurisdiction if the additional amount of tax on such undisclosed
income is more than a particular figure (which at different points of time H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.
--.
A exceeded rupees fifty thousand or rupees one hundred thousand, as the
case may be). The assessee must have in addition furnished the return of
income which he.iS,or was required'to furnish under any of the provisions
of the Act. 1277-C-DI

2.4. There is a purpose why the legislature has prescribed the
B condition relating to declaration of the order void when it is obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation of facts. If an order is obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts, it cannot be said that there was tr·ue a·nd fair
disclosure. Unlike Section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of
revised return, there is no provision for revision of an application made
C in terms of Section 245C of the Act. That shows clear legislative intent
that the applicant for settlement has to make a true and fair declaration
from the threshold. It is on the basis of the application recei\'ed that the
Commissioner calls for report to decide whether the application is to be
rejected or permitted to be continued. The declaration so contemplated is
in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concealed income, but it must be
D true and fair disclosure. Voluntary disclosure and making a full and true
disclosure of the income are necessary pre-conditions for invoking the
Commission's jurisdiction. (277-E-F-G)

3.1. In the instant case, the Commission had really missed the true
scope and ambit of Section 245D(6). If the Revenue was able to establish
E that the earlier decision was void because of misrepresentation of the facts,
certainly it was open to the Commission to decide that issue. It cannot be
called by any stretch of imagination ti' be a review of the earlier judgment
or the subsequent Bench sitting in appeal over the earlier Bench's decision.
Further the conclusions of the Commission regarding the genuineness of
F the loan transactions were arrived at without indicating reasons. It only
referred to the respective stands and the submissions of the assessee's
counsel. That was not the proper way to deal with the matter.
(276~E-F-G)

3.2. In the facts and circumstances of th.e case, ·the Commission is
G dfrected to decide the matter afresh keeping inyiew the observations made
by this Court. It is, ho~ever, made <:lear that no opinion is expressed on
the facts of the case. 1278-AI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5334of1999.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.99 of the Income Tax
--
C.I.T. v. O.P. MITTAL (PASAYAT, J.] 267
Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Calcutta in Settlement Applicant A
No. 1/1/3/1989-IT.

Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General, T.A. Khan, Pritish
Kapoor, B.V. Bairam Das and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.

C.S. Agarwal, Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Pradeep Kr. Malik and Bhargava V. B
Desai Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed
by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench Calcutta (in C
short the 'Commission'). By the impugned order it was held that the prayer
made by the Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-VIII, Calcutta (in
short 'CIT') to declare the settlement order passed by the Commission on
18.9.1990 to be void and for withdrawing the benefit~ and immunities granted
to the respondent-assessee was not acceptable. The order dated 18.9.1990 D
was passed under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, I 96 I (in short the
'Act'). The application by the CIT for declaration of the said order to be void
was made purportedly under Section 245D(6) of the Act.

The controversy in the present appeal has arisen in the following factual
background : E
A search was conducted in the premises of the respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the 'assessee') on 8.2.1989 and 9.2.1989 and certain seizures
were made. The assessee filed an application for settlement in terms of Section
245C of the Act on 13.l.1989. It is relevant to note that application for
settlement was made was the financial year 1985-86. The Settlement F
Commission passed an order on 18.9.1990 in terms of Section 245D(4). It is
to be noted that in the application for settlement before the Commission the
assessee claimed to have received Rs.1.5 crores from seven persons on
31.3.1985 in cash. All these seven persons were claimed to be residents of
Sikkim and that the amounts were received by way of loan. The details of the
receipts are as follow$ : G

- (i) Rs.20,00,000 From Shri Srinivas Agarwal, Singtam, Sikkim.

(ii) Rs.20,00,000 From Shri Hari Krishan Agarwal, Singtam, Sikkim.

(iii) Rs.20,00,000 From Shri Keshu Ram Agarwal, Melli, Sikkim.
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R.

A (iv)· Rs.20,00,000 From Shri Subhas Ch. Minda, Melli, Sikkim.
(v) Rs.20,00,000 From Shri Vinod Kr. Minda, Melli, Sikkim.
(vi) Rs.25,00,000 From Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal, Melli, Sikkim.
(vii) Rs.25,00,000 From Shri Chandulal Agarwal, Melli, Sikkim. ·
B Certain docu'inents were produced before the Commission to prove the
genuineness of 01e aforesaid loans. The Commission accepted the stand of
the assessee aqd did not cast any doubt on the credibility of sum of Rs.1.5
crores to have been advanced as loans. It appears that enquiries were conducted
by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI') at the request of
C the revenue regarding the aforesaid loans, at Jorthang, Melli and Singtam. In
the opinion of the CBI the alleged lenders had no means or financial capacity
to advance huge loan to the assessee and were mere name lenders. When the
investigating officer contacted the so called lenders, they denied having
advanced any loan. Some of the certificates purportedly issued were not
authentic. One of the persons i.e. the then Commissioner of Siliguri
D municipality Mr. Rabin Paul admitted that he had no direct knowledge of the
transaction and, therefore, the assessee had obtained the certificate by practising
fraud. The further fact is that some of the lenders i.e. S/Shri Gauri Shankar ·
Agarwal, Subhas Ch. Minda andVinod Kr. Minda had made payment of tax
to the Sikkim authorities after the order of settlement. It was projected before
E the Commission at the first in~tanee a:s · if they were tax payers. Enquiries
revealed that Shri Subhas Cb. ·.Minda was not assessed to income tax up to
the period 1985-86. Therefcire, the submission made before the Commission
that he was·~ssessed regularly before the Sikkim authorities was false.

In the afore5-_aj,d.-Oackground prayer was made by the CIT for declaration
F of the order passed by the Commission to be void and for withdrawal of the
benefits granted. The motion was opposed by the assessee according to whom
the order of the Commission was final in terms of Section 24~1. There was
no power for any review of the earlier order and in any event the Commission
had. analysed the factual position. Fresh analysis would amount to sitting in
G judgment over the earlier decision which power the Commission did not
possess.

By the impugned order the Commission held that the stand taken by the ·
assessee 's counsel was correct. It was held that the department had not
-
I

established that settlement order under Section 2450 (4) dated 18.9.1990 was
H obtained by the assessee by fraud and misrepresentation of facts. It was
C.l.T. v. O.P. MITTAL [PASAYAT . .I.] 269
further noted that under Section 2450(6) the Commission was not considering A

.. whether the loans of Rs.1.5 crores claimed to have been taken by the assessee
from seven persons were genuine or not. It was held that if the Commission
would go into merit regarding genuineness of the loans, that would amount
to re-appraisal and re-evaluation of the evidence which was already apprised
by the earlier Bench, and it would amount to sitting in judgment over the
findings arrived at by the earlier Bench which was not legally permissible to B
the Commission to review its own decision. Further it was held that the CBI
report did not merit acceptance as the alleged lenders were genuine persons
who were admittedly contacted by the CBI officials. There was no statement
recorded from them stating that they had not given the loans. Therefore, the
petition under Section 2450(6) was rejected. C
Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the appellant submitted that approach of the Commission is legally not
tenable. The Commission has not kept the scope and ambit of the power
exercisable under Section 2450 (6) of the Act in its proper perspective. The
application filed by the appellant-revenue was not really for review. There D
was no question of any review involved. There was also no question of the
subsequent Bench sitting in appeal over the earlier Bench's decision. The
jurisdiction under Section 2450(6) is exercisable when it is subsequently
found by the Commission that the settlement had been obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. The Commission after having held that the case E
of the appellant was not covered by Section 2450(6) of the Act had given
clean chit to the assessee by abruptly concluding that the stand presented by
the assessee's counsel was acceptable. It also lightly brushed aside the
evidentiary value of the materials placed on record to justify the stand of the
revenue that the settlement order had been obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. The fraud and/or misrepresentation of facts are F
tell tale. The investigating officer had categorically stated that the alleged
lenders categorically denied to have advanced any loan. There was inherent
improbability in the assessee's stand that seven persons would keep huge
sums of money and would give money on the same day by cash. Since there
was no assessment question of furnishing certificates about assessment from G
unconnected persons is sufficient to show misrepresentation of facts. No
returns of income were filed by the lenders upto relevant time. Therefore, it
was submitted that the order of the Commission needs to be set aside.

In response, Mr. C.S. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the
assessee submitted that finality is attached to the order passed under Section H
I
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A 2450 (4) in terms of Section 2451. It is only the Commission which has the
power to initiate proceedings to set aside the order passed under Section
2450(4) if it on its own comes to the conclusion that the order was obtained
by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The revenue cannot initiate any
proceedings in terms of Section 2450(6). Further, all the relevant aspects
were considered by the Commission earlier. The CIT had ample opportunity
B to object to any statement made in the application for settlement. The
Commission while dealing with the application had dealt with the aspects
involved ·and had passed the order. On mere unsubstantiated allegation
regarding lack of capacity to advance loans, alleged inherent improbabilities,
or the authorities giving a different version after having issued ce11ificates,
C there is no scope for coming to the conclusion that there was any fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. Therefore, the Commission had rightly refused to
accept the prayer made by the CIT as it would have amounted to review of
the earlier order and in essence would have amounted to the subsequent
Bench sitting in appeal over the decision of the earlier Bench.

D Sections 245A to 245V are covered by Chllpter XIXA of the Act.

A new Chapter XIX-A was introduced by the Taxation Laws
(amendment) Act, 1975 (in short the 'Amendment Act') w.e.f. 1.4.1976. The
Commission is constituted by the Central Government for. the settlement of
cases under Chapter XIX-A. The expression "case" as appearing in Section
E 245A(b) refers to any proceeding under the Act for the assessment or re-
assessment of income of any person in respect of any year or years or by way
of appeal or revision in connection with such assessment or re-assessment
which may be pending before any income-tax authority on the date on which
an application under sub-section (I) of Section 245C is made. It further
F provides that where any appeal or application for revision has been preferred
after the expiry of the specified period and which has not been admitted then
the same shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending within the meaning
of clause (b) of Section 245A. Scheme of Chapter XIX-A sho\VS that the
filing of application by the assessee is a unilatera! act, and the department
may not be aware of the same. It has to be noted that if an application for
G settlement is filed under Section 245C, it is not automatically admitted. Section
2450 deals with procedure on receipt of an application under Section 245C.
Under sub-section (I) thereof, the Commission after following the prescribed
procedure can allow the application to be proceeded with or rejected. Only
after the Commission allows the petition to be proceeded with, it exercises
H the power of settlement.
C.l.T. v. O.P. MITTAL [PASAYAT . .I.] 271
One basic feature of Chapter XIXA is that it relates to income which A
was not disclosed before the income-tax authorities. This is evident from
Section 245C which reads as follows :

"Section 245C : Application for settlement of cases.

245C(/) : An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, B
make an application in such form and in such manner as may 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 C
may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case
settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner
hereinafter provided :

Provided that no such application shall be made unless, -

(a) the assessee has furnished the return of income which he is or was D
required to furnish under any of the provisions of this Act; and

(b) the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income
disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees.

(lA) For the purposes of sub-section (l) of this section and sub- E
sections (2A) to (20) of section 2450, the additional amount of
income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed in an application
made under sub-section ( l) of this section shall be the amount
calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (l B) to
(ID). F
(l B) Where the income disclosed in the application relates to only
one previous year,

(i) if the applicant has not furnished a return in respect of the total
income of that year (whether or not an assessment has been made in G
respect of the total income of that year), then, except in a case covered
by clause (iii), tax shall be calculated on the income disclosed in the
application as if such income were the total income;

(ii) if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of the total
income of that year (whether or not an assessment has been made in H
pursuance of such return), tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of
the total income returned and the income disclosed in the appliCation
272 SUPREl'v1E COURT REPORTS (20051 2 S.C.R.

A as if such aggregate were the total income;

(iii) if the proceeding pending before the income-tax authority is in
the nature of a proceeding for reassessment of the applicant under
.section 147 or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such
reassessment, and the applicant has not furnished a return in respect
B of the total income of that year in the course of such proceeding for
reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total
income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under
section 143 or section 144 or section 14 7 and the income disclosed
in the application as if such aggregate were the total income.
c (1 C) The additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the
income disclosed in the application relating to the previous year
referred to in sub-section (18) shall be,

(a) in a case referred to in clause (i) of that sub-section, the amount
D of tax calculated under that clause;

(b) in a case referred to in clause (ii) of that sub-section, the amount
of tax calculated under that clause as reduced by the amount of tax
calculated on the total income returned for that year;

(iii) in a case referred to in clause (iii) of that sub-section, the amount
E of tax calculated under that clause as reduced by the amount of tax
calculated on the total income assessed in the earlier proceeding for
assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147".

(Underlined for.emphasis)
F Prior to substitution by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. i .6.1987, the proviso
to sub-section ( 1) read as follows :

"provided that no such application shall be made unless the
additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in
G the application exceeds fifty thousand rupees."

The word "fifty thousand rupees" in the earlier proviso has been substituted
by the expression "one hundred thousand rupees" by the Finance Act, 1995
w.e. f. I. 7.1995. Some changes were introduced by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f.
1.6.1987 in sub section ( 1B) and ( 1C) which do not have much importance
H for the present appeal.
C.I.T. v. O.P. MITTAL [PASAYAT. J.] 273

The Commission is not bound to proceed with any application filed A
under Section 245C as is clear from Section 2450. The special provisions so
far as relevant read as follows :

Section 245D : Procedure on receipt of an application under section
245C.
B
"245D(J)- On receipt of an application under section 245C, the
Settlement Commission shall call for a report 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 or reject the C
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 :
D
Provided further that the Commissioner shall furnish the report
within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of communication
from the Settlement Commission in case of all applications made
under section 245C on or after the lst day of July, 1995 and if the
Commissioner fails to furnish the report within the said period, the
Settlement Commission may make the order without such report. E
(2) x x x x x

(2A) Subject.to the provisions of sub-section (28), the assessee shall
within thirty-five days of the receipt of a copy of the order under sub-
section (I) allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay the F
additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in
the application and shall furnish proof of such payment to the
Settlement Commission.

(28) If the Settlement Commission is satisfied, on an application
made in this behalf by the assessee, that he is unable for good and G
sufficient reasons to pay the additional amount of income-tax referred
to in sub-section (2A) within the time specified in that sub-section,
it may extend th~ time for payment of the amount which remains
unpaid or allow payment thereof by instalments if the assessee
furnishes adequate security for the payment thereof.
H
0

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A (2C) Where the additional amount of income-tax is not paid within
the time specified under sub-section (2A), then, whether or not the
Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of the
amount which remains unpaid or has allowed payment thereof by
instalments under sub-section (28), the assessee shall be liable to pay
simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum on the amount remaining
B unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days referred
to in sub-section (2A).

(20) x x x x x

(3) Where an application is allowed to be proceeded with under sub-
c section (I), the Settlement Commission may call for the relevant
records from the Commissioner and after examination of such records,
ifthe Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry
or investigation in the matter is n@cessary, it may direct the
Commissioner to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or
investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the
D
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 (I), and the report, if any,
of the Commissioner received under sub-section (3), and after giving
an opportunity to the applicant and to the Commissioner to be heard,
E
either in person or through a representative duly authorized in this
behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placd
before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may, in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it
thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other
F matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred
to in the report of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (3).

(5) x x x x x

G (6) Every order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide for the
terms of settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or
interest] the manner in which any sum due under the settlement shall
be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective and
shall also provide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently
found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by
H
C.I.T. v. O.P. MITTAL [PASAYAT, J.] 275 •

fraud or misrepresentation of facts. " A
(underlined for emphasis)

Sub-section (I) of Section 245C makes it clear that at any stage of a
case relating to him an assessee may make an application to the Commission
disclosing fully and truly his income which has not beel' di .. :;losed before the B
Assessing Officer. To put it differently, an assessee cannot approach the
Commission for settlement of his case in respect of an income which has
already been disclosed before the Assessing Officer. The income disclosed as
contemplated is in the nature of voluntary disclosure of concerned income.

Section 245F dealing with powers and procedure of Settlement 'C
Commission provides that in addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement
Commission under Chapter XIX-A, it has all the powers which are vested in
the income-tax authority under the Act. Sub-section (2) is of vital importance
and provides that where an application made under Section 245C has been
allowed to be proceeded with under Section 2450, the Commission shall D
until an order is passed under sub-section (4) of Section 2450, subject to the
provisions of sub-section (3) of that section have exclusive jurisdiction to
exercise the powers and perform the functions of the income-tax authority
under the Act in relation to the case. In essence, the Commission assumes
jurisdiction to deal with the matter after it decides to proceed with the
application and continues to have the jurisdiction till it makes an order under E
Section 2450. Section 2450(4) is the charging section and sub-section (6)
prescribes the modalities to be adopted to give effect to the order. It has to
be noted that the language used in Section 2450 is "order" and not
"assessment". The order is not described as the original assessment or regular •
assessment or re-assessment. In that sense, the Commission exercises a plenary
jurisdiction.
F

The Commission's power of settlement has to be exercised in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. Though the Commission has sufficient
elbowroom in assessing the income of the applicant and it cannot make any
order with a term of settlement which would be in conflict with the mandatory G
provisions of the Act like in the quantum and payment of tax and the interest.
The object of the legislature, in introducing Section 245C is to see that
protracted proceedings before the authorities or in Courts are avoided by
resorting to settlement of cases. In this process an assessee cannot expect any
reduction in amounts statutorily payable under the Act.
H
276y SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 2 S.C.R.

A A bare reading of Section 2450(6) shows that every order passed under
sub-section (4) has to provide the terms of the settlement and also to provide
that the settlement shall be void if it is found subsequently by the Commission
that it has been obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation of facts. The plea
of the assessee that the initiation of proceeding to find out as to whether the
order has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts has to be
B initiated by the Commission suo motu is not spelt out in the said sub-section.
It is a statutory requirement that a condition has to. be incorporated in the
order passed under sub-section (4) specifying that settlement shall be void if
it is subsequently found by the Commission that it has been obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The decision whether the order has been
C obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts is that of the Commission.
But it is not .a requirement that the Commission must suo motu initiate the
action. If the revenue has material to show that the order was obtained by
fraud or misrepresentation of facts it certainly can move the Commission for
decision on that issue. Otherwise, even if in a given case there is material in
abundance to establish that the order was obtained by fraud or
D misrepresentation of facts, yet the void order would continue to be operative
because of the fortuitous circumstance that the Commission does not suo
motu initiate the proceeding. Merely because Section 2451 provides that the
order of Settlement is conclusive it does not take away the power of the
Commission to decide whether the settlement order had been obtained by
E fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Any other interpretation would render
sub-section (6) otiose. The Commission had really missed the true scope and
ambit of Section 2450(6). If the CIT was able to establish that the earlier
decision was void because of misrepresentation of the facts, certainly it was
open to the Commission to decide that issue. It cannot be called by any
stretch of imagination to be review of the earlier judgment or the subsequent
F Bench sitting in appeal over the earlier Bench's decision. Further the
conclusions of the Commission regarding the genuineness of the loan
transactions were arrived at without indicating reasons. It only referred to the
respective stands and the submissions of the assessee's counsel. That was not
the proper way to deal with the matter.
G The foundation for settlement is an application which assessee can file
at any stage of a case relating to him in such form and in such manner as is
prescribed. The statutory mandate is that the application shall contain "full
and true disclosure" of the income which has not been disclosed before the
assessing officer, the manner in which such income has been derived. The
H fundamental requirement of the application under Section 245C is that full
C.I.T. v. O.P. MITTAL [PASAYAT, .1) 277
and true disclosure of the income has to be made, along with the manner in A
which such income was derived. On receipt of the application, the Commission
calls for report from the Commissioner and on the basis of the material
contained in the report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of
the case or complexity of the investigation involved therein, it can either
reject the application or allow the application to be proceeded with as provided B
in Section 2450(1).

It has to be noted that the Commission exercises power in respect of
income which was not disclosed before the authorities in any proceeding, but
are disclosed in the petition under Section 245C. It is not that any amount of
undisclosed income can be brought to the notice of the Commission in the C
said petition. Commission exercises jurisdiction if the additional amount of
tax on such undisclosed income is more than a particular figure (which at
different points of time exceeded rupees fifty thousand or rupees one hundred
thousand, as the case may be). The assessee must have in addition furnished
the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the
provisions of the Act. In essence the requirement is that there must be an D
income disclosed in a return furnished and undisclosed income disclosed to
the Commission by a petition under Section 245C.

There is a purpose why the legislature has prescribed the condition
relating to declaration of the order void when it is obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. It cannot be said that there has been a true and fair E
declaration of income which is the pre-requisite for settlement by the
Commission. If an order is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts,
it cannot be said that there was true and fair disclosure. It was noted here that
unlike Section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of revised return,
there is no provision for revision of an application made in terms of Section p
245C. That shows clear legislative intent that the applicant for settlement has
to make a true and fair declaration from the threshold. It is on the basis of
the application received that the Commissioner calls for report to decide
whether the application is to be rejected or permitted to be continued. The
declaration contemplated in Section 245C is in the nature of voluntary
disclosure of concealed income, but as noted above it must be true and fair G
disclosure. Voluntary disclosure and making a full and true disclosure of the
. income are necessary pre-conditions for invoking the Commission's
jurisdiction.

In the aforesaid background it would be proper to direct the Commission H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 2 S.C.R.

A to re-hear the matter. It shall be open to the parties to place any further
material which they may choose to place for consideration in support of their
respective stands. The Commission shall decide the matter afresh keeping in
.view the observations made above. It is, however, made clear that we have
not expressed any opinion on the facts of the case.

B The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Costs made easy.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.