Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts are as under.

3. These petitions are filed by the Revenue, challenging a common order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission ('the Commission' for short) under section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accepting offer of settlement made by the respondents and granting immunity from prosecution and penalty.

4. The respondent No. 2 in each of the petitions are assessees engaged in the business of construction and development of immovable properties. They also belong to the same group of assessees. Assessments for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 in case of these assessees were pending. Desirous of settling such disputes, the assessees moved different settlement applications, each by the respective assessee, seeking to resolve the disputes with the Revenue arising in the said pending assessments for the four various assessment years such as 2012-13 to 2014-15. These settlement applications passed through various stages till coming to the stage of the Commission passing an order under section 245D(4) of the Act. In the settlement applications, the assessees had made additional disclosures of undisclosed incomes. They had admitted to have received on money through sale of the constructed properties. According to the assessees however, the entire on money receipt was not its unaccounted income. The unaccounted income would comprise of the profit element embedded in such cross receipts according to the assessees. The assessees projected 15% profit on the turnover. On the basis of the turnover of unaccounted receipts mentioned above and 15% profit rate claimed by the assessees, the assessees had made disclosures of additional income in the applications for settlement filed by them.

5. During the proceedings before the Commission, detailed examination of materials on record took place. Revenue raised multiple contentions to oppose settlement applications of the assessees. In particular, the contentions of the Revenue were that further inquiry was necessary and that 15% rate of profit was on the lower side. According to the Revenue, in similar business, the rate of return was much higher.

6. The Commission accepted the disclosure of the turnover made by the assessees as it appeared that the Revenue had not brought any contrary material on the record in this respect. The Commission also suggested that 15% rate of profit out of the turnover was reasonable. The Commission while passing the impugned order further recorded that during the course of the proceedings, the representatives of the assessees had made a voluntary disclosure of an additional sum of Rs. 2 crores i.e. Rs. 50 lakhs in case of each assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 "In a spirit of settlement and to put a quietus to the issue." Taking note of the materials on record in these further disclosures made by the assessees, the Settlement Commission passed the impugned order and, as noted, accepted the offers of settlement and granted immunity to the assessees from prosecution and penalties.

7. This order, the Revenue has challenged primarily on the ground that the assessees had failed to make true and full disclosures of their income, which is one of the basic requirements of settlement as provided in sub-section (1) of section 245C of the Act. The Revenue has also questioned the approach of the Commission in not carrying out further inquiries.

13.06.17

8. Appearing for the Revenue, learned counsel Shri Manish Bhatt contended that the assessees had after making initial disclosures, during the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, made further substantial disclosures. This itself would mean that assessees' initial disclosures were not true and full. Relying on the judgme