9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue which he proposed to raise in these writ petitions are covered by a decision of this Court in the case of R.Vijayalakshmi V. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai, in W.P.Nos.5553 to 5558 of 2008 and therefore, it is submitted that, that part of the order of the Commission requires to be set aside. It is seen that the Revenue filed Special Leave challenging the order of the Settlement Commission. In the instant case, in S.L.P.Nos.5836-5840/2000, this is along with the other batch of similar matters were clubbed together and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 3. In terms of the above direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all that the Commission was required to see as to whether the two circulars referred therein issued by the Central Board dated 02.05.1994 and 23.05.1996 would be applicable. Thus, in other words, the remand was a limited remand with a specific direction and the Commission cannot proceed beyond the said direction. In terms of the direction, the Commission has considered the matter and passed the impugned orders thereby withdrawing the waiver of interest and holding as hereunder: Settlement Application No.:13/CHN/61/95-IT 682/CHN/70/98/IT [W.P.No.5363/2005]: 1.Internet u/s 234A (i)Interest for the A.Y.s 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e terminal date for calculation of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, based on the decisions in the case of Hindustan Bulk Carrier (259 ITR 449) and CIT V. Damani Bros. (259 ITR 475), the correctness of such order is being questioned in these writ petitions. This very issue was considered by this Court in the case R.Vijayalaksmi (cited supra) and it was held that the Commission had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter for the purpose of shifting the terminal date. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: 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. Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectify 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 were 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 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, rectifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the computation of terminal date for charging the interest under Section 234B alone and the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 8.8.2007 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 16.7.1998,15.10.1998 and 16.7.1998 under Section 245D(4) has become final and the Department will be entitled to interest only as ordered by the commission. 5. Thus, by following the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
