Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 966 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTReview of settlement to order passed u/s 245D(4) - application for rectification of the typographical errors under Section 245D(6B) - Held that:- Once an order has been passed under Section 245D(4) of the Act, it is a final order settling the dispute between the parties. The provisions of the rectification of the order passed u/s 245D(4) is permissible u/s 245D(6B) only to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. Any issue which is debatable or which would requires reconsideration of an issue which has already been decided, would fall out side the scope of a rectification application under Section 245D(6B). In the present case, the minority view, in fact, has upheld the review of order dated 27th June, 2016 passed under Section 245 D(4) of the Act by the order dated 27th July, 2016. This even without considering the scope of an application filed under Section 245D(6B). If the view taken by the minority member of the Commission is accepted, we fear, that then there would be no finality reached to an order passed by the Commission under Section 245D(4). This for the reason that application for rectification would be made under Section 245D(6B) to correct a final order passed under Section 245D(4) of the Act even though it is outside the scope of rectification. This would defeat the entire object and purpose of Chapter XIXA of the Act viz: expeditious settlement of dispute between the assessee and State so as to reduce litigation and collect taxes at the earliest. In case, any party is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 245D(4) and the same is bad because it is contrary to the Act or in breach of principal of natural justice or suffer from a flaw in the decision making process, only then it is open to the party concerned to challenge the same before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see Jyotendrasinhji v/s. S. I. Tripathi (1993 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court). Rectification application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act is not a remedy to correct a final order by reviewing it. The jurisdiction under Section 245D(6B) of the Act can only be exercised if the order contains an error which is apparent from the record. In these facts, we see no merit in the Petition.
|