The court established that the Settlement Commission's order is conclusive and valid, and rejected the petitioner's contention regarding lack of full and true disclosure.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. In Merchant of Venice, Portia disguised as young law clerk had propounded that the bond only allowed Shylock to remove the flesh, not the blood of Antonio. Further damning Shylock’s case, she said that he must cut one pound of flesh, no more, no less; she asserted “if the scale do turn/But in the estimation of a hair/though diest and all thy goods are confiscate.” The impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission deserves to be upheld for the petitioner herein- Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd. it is apparent is caught in their own web, which they stoutly and strongly deny. Even now in the writ petition they have urged and argued that their conduct and actions were bonafide and solely guided by the noble and honourable desire to come clean with their inglorious past. The petitioner claims that they without any motive or intention to help a third person, declared undisclosed taxable income of Rs. 1,36,08,897/-. We record that the undisclosed income has been partly accepted and immunity from penalty and prosecution stands granted, but the “wrong” is checkmated and corrected by the Settlement Commission.

2. To appreciate the controversy, necessary basic facts may be noticed.

3. Gupta Perfumers (P) Ltd., the petitioner is a company that was incorporated on 15th February, 1973. It was engaged in the business of manufacture of perfumery compounds and flavoured essence concentrate also known as industrial fragrance and flavoured concentrates etc. The manufacture and sale as admitted and stated by the petitioner was closed in the year 1987. The petitioner claims that they retained the corporate structure and its business activities remained confined to investment of funds.

4. On 15th May, 2009, the petitioner filed an application for settlement and vide order dated 30th July, 2009 under Section 245D, the application was held to be valid for the assessment years 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-2010. The application for assessment year 2006-07 was declared to be invalid. In the application, it was stated that after interval of 14 years, during 2001-02, the petitioner had again resumed their manufacturing activities. The income from manufacture and sale remained at a very low key till 2008-09.Cash book, ledger etc. kept on day to day basis, were misplaced and not available. A summary of sales and figures of receivable was recorded in a memorandum and other loose papers etc., which were in the custody of Virender Kumar Gupta. The profits/income as declared was on the basis of ‘net of sales’ in the financial year 2008-09. Advances from customers against the sale of goods, were included. Owing to non-availability of necessary proof of acceptability of such advances, an aggregate of Rs.25,38,969/- was surrendered and stated as a part of the undisclosed income declared of Rs.1,36,08,897/-. Receivables of Rs.61,72,021/- (net) were accounted for in the undisclosed income. The total net taxable income declared including the amount declared in the return for the assessment years in question was Rs.2,41,70,205/-.

5. The Settlement Commission by the impugned order dated 28th May, 2010, has accepted the settlement application in part and computed the income of the petitioner as under: -

As shown in the Computation sheet filed with the return before deduction u/s 80I.

As shown in the SOF before claim of deduction u/s 80I.”

6. The grievance of the petitioner is against the following observations and findings recorded by the Settlement Commission:-

“No immunity is granted in respect of income contained in the seized papers on the basis of which computation of income has been made in the settlement application and which has been held not to belong to the applicant company by us. The department will be free to initiate penalty and prosecution proceedings in respect of these papers in appropriate hands as per law.”

7. The contention of the petitioner before us is that the aforesaid directions/observations should be set asid