The completeness of disclosure by the assessee for settlement and the entertainability of revenue's writ petitions were the central legal points established in the judgment.

ORDER :

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 2251/2001 and 2272- 2291/2001 filed by the assessee-appellants [for short "the assessee"] and Civil Appeal Nos. 2292/2001 and 2252-2271/2001 filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [for short "the revenue"] against a common judgment and order dated 28th July, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 2191/1999 and other connected writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from C.A. No. 2251/2001.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are : Search of various premises of the assessee and its group was conducted (date not mentioned) followed by another one on 19th November, 1992. Voluminous books of accounts, Rs. 25,000/- in cash and a computer disk were seized. On 12th March, 1993 an order of provisional assessment under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short "the Act"], as it then stood on the Statute, was passed estimating the undisclosed income of the assessee at 200.60 crores for the Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94.

3. The application filed by the assessee under Section 132(12) of the Act, as we are given to understand, is still pending. On 30th of September, 1993 the assessee filed an application under Chapter XIX-A of the Act for settlement of the dispute before the Settlement Commission for settlement of the dispute for the Assessment Years 1989-90 to 1993-94. This application for settlement was filed under Section 245C in Form 34B set out in Appendix II to the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is in two parts. While Part- I deals with nature and complexity and circumstances of the case, Part-II deals with statement of facts which must contain the amount of income which had not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, additional amount of income tax payable on the said income, full and true statement of facts regarding the issues to be settled including the terms of settlement sought for by the applicant, and the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived, as a confidential document which is not disclosed to the Commissioner of Income Tax until the Settlement Commission admits the application for being proceeded with. A notice was issued to the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (the Revenue) who submitted his report under Section 245C(1) of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1987 [for short "the Rules"]. The revenue submitted its reply on 21st of January, 1994 to the effect that there was no complexity in the case and the same was not fit for settlement. Hearings took place in July and August, 1994. Initially, the assessee had approached the Settlement Commission disclosing its undisclosed income at Rs. 1.94 crores. At the time of making the disclosure the assessee was not in possession of the seized documents as the same had not been supplied and, on the documents being made available to the assessee and, on the documents being made available to the assessee, at the instance of the Settlement Commission, the assessee filed its revised confidential annexure in form 34B on 19th of September, 1994 and raised the undisclosed income to Rs. 11.41 crores (according to the revenue, the undisclosed income was raised by and not to Rs. 11.41 crores). It may be mentioned that in the impugned order the High Court (at page 24 of the paper-book) has recorded that after the filing of the revised confidential annexure on 19th September, 1994 under Section 245D(1), the assessee had further raised the undisclosed income by Rs. 2.76 crores and Rs. 7 crores which, according to the Revenue, was a disclosure whereas, according to the assessee, it was conceded with a view to settle the matter and buy peace with the department.

4. The total disclosure of the group was raised to Rs. 17.03 crores from Rs. 3.59 crores. On 17th November, 1994, the Settlement Commission admitted the application for settlement and passed an order under Sectio