2010 (8) TMI 35 - SC - Income Tax

Settlement commission – full and true disclosure by the party – first disclosure was ₹ 1.94 crores – second disclosure was ₹ 11.41 crores – Held that: - It is trite law that a taxing statute is to be construed strictly. - In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. – As afore-stated, in the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed under Section 245C(1) of the Act and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form. - the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission was not maintainable as the assessee had not made a full and true disclosure of their undisclosed income were kept open. - the disclosure of ₹ 11.41 crores as additional undisclosed income in the revised annexure, filed on 19th September, 1994 alone was sufficient to establish that the application made by the assessee on 30th September, 1993 under Section 245C(1) of the Act could not be entertained as it did not contain a "true and full" disclosure of their undisclosed income and "the manner" in which such income had been derived. - High Court was correct in making the order of remand and no good ground is made out for interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. - The Commissioner will be entitled to costs, quantified at ₹ 50,000/-.