TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he sake of convenience, the facts are taken from C.A. No. 2251/2001. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are: Search of various premises of the assessee and its group was conducted (date not mentioned) followed by another one on November 19, 1992. Voluminous books of account, Rs. 25,000 in cash and a computer disk were seized. On March 12, 1993, an order of provisional assessment under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), as it then stood on the statute, was passed estimating the undisclosed income of the assessee at Rs. 200.60 crores for the assessment year 1993-94. The application filed by the assessee under section 132(12) of the Act, as we are given to understand, is still pending. On September....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ettlement Commission disclosing its undisclosed income at Rs. 1.94 crores. At the time of making the disclosure the assessee was not in possession of the seized documents as the same had not been supplied and, on the documents being made available to the assessee and, at the instance of the Settlement Commission, the assessee filed its revised confidential annexure in Form No. 34B on September 19, 1994, and raised the undisclosed income to Rs. 11.41 crores (according to the Revenue, the undisclosed income was raised by and not to Rs. 11.41 crores). It may be mentioned that in the impugned order the High Court has recorded that after the filing of the revised confidential annexure on September 19, 1994, under section 245D(1), the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest. Penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs was also imposed on the assessee. However, the assessee was granted immunity from prosecution. The Revenue filed a batch of 21 writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay out of which C. W. P. No. 2191/99 was treated as the main writ petition, challenging the maintainability of the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission. These writ petitions of the Revenue have been allowed by the impugned common order dated July 28, 2000. Aggrieved against the order of the High Court, the assessee and its group have filed 21 appeals by grant of special leave. Similarly, the Revenue being aggrieved against a part of the order, i.e., remission of the case to the Settlement Commiss....