A finding of fact made by the Settlement Commission is not open to judicial review unless it is established that, such finding of fact suffers from perversity or is vitiated due to bias or malice. None of the grounds known to law to upset a finding of fact returned by a Settlement Commission has been substantiated in the facts of the present case. The findings of the Settlement Commission on the correctness of the disclosures made by the assessee before it have not been substantiated to be perverse. The contention that, the Settlement Commission ought to have arrived at the tax liability on the materials disclosed before it, is unacceptable. For the Settlement Commission to assume jurisdiction, it must return a finding that, the assessee before it has made a full and true disclosure of its income and the other matters referred to Section 245C(1). In the present case, the assessee did not made a full and true disclosure of its income before the Settlement Commission. Such is the finding of the Settlement Commission. Such finding has not been substantiated to be perverse or to be suffering from such a legal infirmity so as to warrant an interference by a Writ Count. It is not for the Writ Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction over an order passed by the Settlement Commission.
Paid content
Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.
Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
Related Articles in Income Tax
Corporate Guarantees in Transfer Pricing: Courts Draw Line Between Shareholder Support and Services
September 1, 2026
Rolex Rings’ ₹5.40 Crore Accommodation-Entry Addition Deleted: ITAT Rajkot
August 31, 2026
ITAT Strikes Down Section 263 Revision Against Mukul Rohatgi After PCIT Promotion
August 31, 2026
ITAT Jodhpur Allows 80G Approval Where Religious Spending Remains Below 5%
August 31, 2026ITR Filing Deadline: Six Checks Before 31 August 2026 for AY 2026-27
August 31, 2026
