9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Income tax [2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] followed - the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification – the order is required to be set aside - In any case, application for rectification was not maintainable as the statute stood at the relevant time - Decided in favour of Assessee. - Special Civil Application No. 15097 of 2004 With Special Civil Application No. 15101 of 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est chargeable u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Incometax Act in both the cases. In the case of Kakadia Bulders P. Ltd. returns for assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 were due after the date of search. Considering the same, the interest chargeable for nine out of twelve months delay in 1994-95 is waived. Interest u/s.234A for 1995-96 is chargeable for three months only which shall be charged a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the decision of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Incometax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others reported in 252 ITR 1, charging of interest was mandatory. The Commission therefore, could not have waived any portion of such interest liability. 2.3) The Settlement Commission thereupon passed the impugned order and stated thus : 4. The applicant s miscellaneous application dated 29th De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for time to pay the liability arising to the applicants as a result of this order citing financial constraints. We allow both the applicants to pay the resultant liability in four quarterly installments beginning 30th November, 2002. Interest payable under section 245D (6A) will be payable along with the last installment. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application moved by the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of interest liability of the assessee could have been waived or reduced by the Commission. If the Revenue was aggrieved by such order of the Settlement Commission, it ought to have challenged the same in accordance with law. In any case, application for rectification was not maintainable as the statute stood at the relevant time as interpreted by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and others v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
