9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenge to the order is not in entirety, but only with regard to the terminal date from which interest got charged. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue agreed that every issue is interpreted by the decision of this Court, in the case of R.Vijayalakshmi vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench and others, in W.P.Nos.5553 to 5558 of 2008 dated 26.07.2016. Identical issue was raised before this court and ultimately it was held that the Department will be entitled for interest only as ordered by the Commission while passing the order under section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act. It would be beneficial to refer the operative portion of the order: "...After hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; rectification and such rectification can be done on any mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, such power exercisable under sub Section 6D of Section 245D can be exercised only to rectify a mistake and such mistake should be apparent from the record. Thus, even as per the amendment made by Finance Act, 2011, power of review is not conferred on the Settlement Commission. 8. In the Case of Smt.U.Narayanamma, Writ Petitions are filed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is held to be unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the orders dated 19.01.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.01.2005 and order dated 14.07.2005, 04.02.2005, insofar as it relates to the computation of terminal date for charging the interest under Section 234B alone and the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 08.08.2007 are quashed. 11. After the above order was dictated, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department submitted that if the order passed by the third respondent is quashed, then it would amount to setting aside the rate of interest as ordered by the Commission. The Revenue need not have any apprehension in this regard and this Court has held that the order passed by the Commission dated 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
