Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (8) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the respondent. 2. All the Writ Petitions arise out of the common issue with regard to the scope and power of Settlement Commissioner under the Income Tax Act to rectify its orders. Though there are six Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.5553, 5555 and 5557 of 2008 are to be dealt with first. This is so because, these Writ Petitions have been filed by the Assessee, questioning the orders in the miscellaneous petitions filed by the Department before the Settlement Commission on 6.2.2003, seeking for rectification of the order passed by the commission, under Section 245D (4) of the Act. The Settlement Commission, passed the order on 19.1.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.1.2005, respectively. The petitioners did not immediately rush to th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Settlement Commission. Nor any other action was taken within a reasonable time. After about five years, on 6.2.2003, the respondent Department filed miscellaneous petitions before the Commission stating that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (259 ITR 449), and CIT vs. Damani Bros. (C.A.No.7248 of 1999) has held that interest under Section 234B has to be charged for the period beginning from 1st of April next following the relevant financial year upto the date of Commission's order or under Section 245D (4). It is further stated that in the case of assessee, the Commission had ordered to charge interest under Section 234B for the respective assessment year, up to either date of order under Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub section 4 of Section 245D. It is submitted that this power was conferred on the Commission only with effect from 1.6.2011 and the order passed by the Commission on 19.1.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.1.2005, being well before the said date, the commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the miscellaneous petition. 5. The learned counsel referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of U.Narayanamma vs. Government of India, (2013) 352 ITR 598 (AP) wherein the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the earlier order of the Settlement Commission though contrary to the Board Circul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Act. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the commission on 19.1.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.1.2005, was perfect and the consequential order which came to be passed on 8.8.2007 on an miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners/assessees is also perfectly legal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, the first issue to be answered is with regard to the power of the Commission to reopen its proceedings. Section 245-I of the Act states that any order of the Commission passed under Section 245 shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in that Chapter, be reopened in any proceeding under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... led challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Commission on the ground that the Commission has no power to rectify its earlier order even under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Lal, held that the order passed by the Settlement Commission rectifying its earlier order cannot be sustained and must perish. In the said case, rectification was sought for by the commission on the ground that the order passed by the Commission was contrary to the Board's circular. The Court held that even otherwise, it is an error within the jurisdiction of the Commission and it was not an error whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates