IMPORTANT POINT
The scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income disclosed in the application, even revision of the annexure is tantamount to revision of the application.

JUDGMENT

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 Court of Judicature at Bombay in a batch of 22 writ petitions. 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 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), and has remanded all the 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, 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 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:

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 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.

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 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 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 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 245D(1) of the Act 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 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 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 Settlement Commission passed an order under Section 245D(1) of the Act deciding to proceed with the application. Accordingly, the Settlement Commission asked the Commissioner to submit a further report, as requ