9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment years 1988-1989 to 1995-1996 applied for settlement of the assessment to the Settlement Commission ("the Commission" for short) in terms of provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). Such application was entertained and the Commission passed order dated 11.10.2002 assessing the tax liability of the petitioner. In such order, the Commission gave the following directions for charging interest : "(C) Interest under section 215/217, 234B and 234C shall be charged according to law except in respect of ASST. Year 1993-94 in the case of the firm for the reasons mentioned below : The assessment under section 143(3) for assessment year 1993-94 in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest u/sec.234B is chargeable in respect of A.Y.1988-89. (b) The interest u/sec.234B be ordered to be calculated only upto the date of the order of the Hon'ble ITSC u/sec.245D(1)." 4. This application for rectification remained pending before the Commission for number of years. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed written statement. In such statement, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and others v. CIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 477/194 Taxman 566 to contend that interest beyond the stage of section 245D(1) was not permissible. 5. The Settlement Commission passed its impugned order dated 17.9.2013 in which in addition to holding that the Commission has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner kept alive all through out right from the stage, Settlement Commission passed its order under section 245D(4). (c) The Assessing Officer levied such interest on the premise that Settlement Commission's order so permits. (d) When the petitioner filed the rectification application before the Commission, the Commission informed him that the only order passed by the Commission was to charge interest as per law. In other words, there was no direction specifically providing for interest from the petitioner beyond the stage of section 245D(1). & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d also that it does not have the power of rectification, in our opinion the petitioner cannot be precluded from questioning the Assessing Officer's interpretation and implementation of the Commission's order. It is not in dispute that if law is applied as laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal (supra), such consequential direction of the Assessing Officer would not be valid. Counsel for the Revenue however, vehemently contended that the challenge of the petitioner to the Assessing Officer's order is highly belated. We must however, see the entire sequence of events in light of the developments noted above. The petitioner had approached the Settlement Commission raising the grievance that the Commission's order pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
