9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unjustified. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order to the extent it rejects Ext.P2 is set aside and the said application is remitted to the 1st respondent for disposal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Ext.P2(A) application has been rejected on the ground of limitation. In limited circumstances, to correct patent mistakes inherent jurisdiction is also conceded to Courts and Tribunals. But, on the facts of the case, the point involved is not one, where this Court should compel the Settlement Commission to entertain a time barred petition. Normally, a petition barred by time limit has to be rejected. Such an order cannot be described as an order which is ultravires or one passed without jurisdiction. In the result, the challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 143(1)(a) for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 in the light of the Special Bench decision of the Settlement Commission, Bombay in the case of Guljaj Engineering Construction Co. & Others [215/ITR 1(AT)]." 3. Aggrieved by the waiver of interest allowed by Settlement Commission under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, The petitioner preferred Ext.P2 petition. It was pointed out that the waiver granted was in violation of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others [252 ITR(1)] dated 18-10-2001. The said application was considered and rejected by Ext.P3 by the 1st respondent in the following manner. "10.2 As regards the first Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court, the terminal date should be the date of the decision of the Settlement Commission. The said application was considered and rejected by the Settlement Commission as per Ext.P3 order in the following manner. "11.1 As regards the second Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Department on 3-7-2003 relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2003] 259 ITR 449 (S.C.) it is held that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced much after the expiry of limitation period and therefore, the same cannot be pressed into service for rectifying a mistake which already got time barred on an earlier date. 11.2 The second Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Department o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Ext.P2 application is unjustified. Accordingly, Ext.P3 order to the extent it rejects Ext.P2 is set aside and the said application is remitted to the 1st respondent for disposal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 10. Ext.P2(A) application has been rejected on the ground of limitation. Though the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner raised several points to review that decision, I feel that the view taken by the Settlement Commission is a plausible view and this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not justified in interfering with it. Normally, power to review or recall an order can be exercised, if only, it is expressively conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
