Akil Kureshi, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The petitioner Mandhana Industries Ltd. a public limited company has challenged an order dated 28.2.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, copy of which produced at Annexure-Q to the petition. By the said order, the Commissioner had rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner company under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short).

3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing textiles and garments. The petitioner has set up its manufacturing units at two locations i.e. Tarapur in Maharashtra and at Banglore. The petitioner would point out that the Government of India had launched the Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme ("the scheme" for short) w.e.f. 1.4.1999. Under the scheme, to encourage investment in technology upgradation in textile and jute industry, certain financial assistance was made available to domestic industry. Said benefit would be available for modernization or expansion of the existing units as also for setting up new units of textiles and jute industry.

4. The petitioner received reimbursement of interest expenses under the said scheme for assessment years 2006- 07 to 2013-14, breakup of which is as under:-

AY	Net TUF Claim (Rupees in Crore)
06-07	1.48
07-08	4.74
08-09	5.92
09-10	8.44
10-11	13.07
11-12	15.44
12-13	18.27
13-14	12.78
TOTAL	80.15

5. The petitioner periodically filed the returns of income for all the above mentioned assessment years and offered the subsidy benefits received from Government of India under the said scheme to tax as revenue receipt. The petitioner was subjected to search operation on 11.1.2012. By that time, the petitioner's assessment for certain years were already completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The rest were not. Pending assessment under Section 153A of the Act pursuant to the search, the petitioner applied to the Settlement Commission for settlement of all cases under a joint application filed on 22.10.2013. This petition did not contain the Settlement Application and accompanying documents. We had, therefore, requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to make said documents available. These documents have, accordingly, been supplied to us which are taken on record.

6. The petitioner's application for settlement after passing through the various stages envisaged under the Act, came to be finally disposed of by the Settlement Commission by an order dated 30.8.2014 (as at Annexure-M to the petition). In such order, the Settlement Commission concluded as under:-

"Considering all these aspects of the case, we are of the view that end of justice would be met by making an addition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- to the profits disclosed by the applicant in A. Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 pro-rate in the proportion of unsubstantiated purchases as below:-

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
A. Yr.	Amount of unsubstantiated purchases detected		Total Col 3+4 (% total)	Amount disclosed by applicant in application	Amount further added
	u/s. 132	u/s. 133A
2009-10	10,99,51,420	---	10,99,51,420 (10.7%)	44,43,071	13,37,500
2010-11	6,36,28,326	3,67,38,131	10,03,66,457 (9.8%)	21,11,745	12,25,000
2011-12	1,75,67,465	27,59,54,128	29,35,21,593 (28.7%)	70,49,598	35,87,500
2012-13	52,06,10,910	---	52,06,10,910 (100%)	3,42,64,024	1,25,00,000

7. The Settlement Commission imposed certain conditions on which the settlement was based and granted immunity to the petitioner from penalty and prosecution under the Act. The terms and conditions of the settlement for enjoying such immunity read thus:-

"11. Coming to the terms of settlement, the applicant has sought following terms of settlement in th