O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the Income Tax Department challenging an order passed by the Settlement Commission in respect of an application filed by the respondent assessee (in short and hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’) for the period 2009-10 to 2016-17.

2. The premises of the assessee was searched under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) on 05.01.2016, simultaneous with a survey. Notices under Section 153A were issued, returns filed, and proceedings for assessment were taken up.

3. For one of the years i.e. AY 2009-10, notice under Section 148 had also been issued proposing re-assessment of income. Pending assessment and re-assessment proceedings, the assessee moved an application for settlement before the first respondent offering additional income of an amount of Rs.154.86 crores (approx.)

4. Inter alia, the assessee had, in the additional income offered, factored in an adhoc disallowance of a sum of Rs.14 crores spread over three assessment years i.e. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, to address probable omissions in the computation of the additional income and supply deficits, if any that arose in the proceedings before the Commission.

5. The settlement application was admitted to be proceeded with, a report in Rule 9 called for from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the response of the assessee sought, and final orders, as impugned in this writ petition were passed on 28.06.2018.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the revenue has raised grounds challenging the difference of Rs.4.3 crores in the offer made and accepted by the first respondent towards inflation of purchases in pharmacy division, the computation of book profit under Section 115JB and the disallowance of expenditure relatable to exempt income in computing Minimum Alternate Tax. Apart from the same, an omnibus ground has been raised to the effect that no full and true disclosure has been made within the meaning of Section 245C.

7. In the course of submissions, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who has represented the matter on behalf of the Income Tax Department has also assailed certain other conclusions arrived at by the Commission.

8. While Mr.Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee does point out that not all the submissions made by the revenue have been raised as part of the grounds, he does not very seriously press the aforesaid submission but would allow the matter to run its own course, responding to all submissions advanced by the revenue.

9. On the maintainability of the writ petition itself, the assessee would outline the scope of judicial review, which in matters such as these, challenging orders passed by the Settlement Commission, is rather restricted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and several of the High Courts including this Court, have been of the consistent view, that judicial intervention in such challenges must be limited.

10. This proposition would be applicable equally in the case of challenges put forth by the assessee as well as the revenue, as the participation of both parties in the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, is in the spirit of amicable settlement, co-operation and with a view to seek finality upon the issues that arise. Thus, in either case, intervention by the Courts would not be liberal, restricted to the decision making process rather than the decision itself.

11. The procedure before the Commission involves calling for the comments of the Income Tax Department, soliciting the response of the assessee and hearing both parties in detail. It is only thereafter that, bearing note of the submissions made by both parties and consideration of the offer made by the assessee, that the Commission arrives at a decision.

12. In Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi (201 ITR 611), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a challenge to an order of the Settlement Commission and settled the position that has been applied repe