(1.) This writ petition was filed in the year 1998 but the same could not be disposed of by this Court for quite some time since the original bundle and connected records were found missing. On a note put up in this regard, a learned single judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Raviraja Pandian (as he then was)) after hearing the parties to this writ petition issued an order dated 11.09.2009 to the Registry to reconstruct the bundle and to proceed further. As per the said order, the entire case records were reconstructed and that is how the reconstructed records are now placed before me for disposal.
(2.) The petitioner is an income tax assessee. He derives his income from four sources viz., from vegetable business, real estate business in the name of 'Janaki real Estate', a screening theatre called 'Bharani Theatre' taken on lease and distribution of films under the name of 'Devi Karumariamman Films'. For the years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, he filed income tax returns on 22.03.1988. The said returns were assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 245-C(1) of the Income Tax Act on 26.09.1994 disclosing certain additional income to the tune of Rs. 8,02,980/- as detailed below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1756_TLMAD0_2010_1.html</FRM>
(3.) The petitioner wanted the Commission to accept the same as full and true disclosure of the income and to pass an order as per Section 242-C of the Act. The Settlement Commission called for a report from the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Commissioner accordingly submitted a report based on a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 16.10.1986. The Commissioner disputed the disclosure made by the petitioner before the Commission and according to the Commissioner, it was not a full and true disclosure of the income for the relevant periods. Then the Commission proceeded to enquire into the matter. Ultimately, based on the materials placed on either side, the Commission held that the disclosure of income made by the petitioner in his application was not true. But the Commission proceeded further to assess the actual income for the purpose of income tax and accordingly, passed an order wherein, the Commission assessed the income of the petitioner for the relevant periods as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1756_TLMAD0_2010_2.html</FRM>