9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng before the Principal Bench of the Settlement Commission was under section 245 [6B] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commission has committed a very serious error. It is also in gross breach of judicial discipline. I will now recount the reasons. Before the Commission, the judgment of Brij Lal & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; reported in [2010] 328 ITR 477 [SC] was cited. It was a judgment pronounced by no less than five Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through the Hon'ble Mr. S.H. Kapadia, Chief Justice of India. One of the points that was considered in that case is set out in that judgment in the following manner : "[II] If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what is the terminal point for levy of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income truly and regularly before the department. For this reason too, we are not in agreement with the learned A.R. and the interveners. Thus, we are of the view that decision of Brij Lal is incorrectly being relied upon as an authority to contend that interest u/s 234B is leviable on income as per order u/s 245D[1], as the ratio of the case was on the terminal point of charging of interest under section 234B." First of all the issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Lal regarding the levy of interest under section 234B and section 245D[1] and the terminal point for the levy of such interest were substantially in issue before it, as stated by me before. It was decided by the highest Court with abundant reasons. So, the observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it be only by the way has to be respected. But all that does not mean that every statement contained in a judgment of that Court would be attracted by Art. 141. Statements on matters other than law have no binding force. Several decisions of the Supreme Court are on facts and that Court itself has pointed out in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (1972 FAC 549) and Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1960 SC 195) that as on facts no two cases could be similar, its own decisions which were essentially on questions of fact could not be relied upon as precedents for decision of other cases' The standard fixed under the Act is one that is certain. If it is varied to any extent, the certainty of a general standard would be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
