TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5687 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioners : Mr. R. Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda Standing Counsel ORDER Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue which he proposed to raise in these writ petitions are covered by the 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. 3. It is seen that the Revenue filed Special Leave cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the matter back to the Settlement Commission for the limited purpose of examining whether the two circular referred to hereinabove are applicable to the facts of these appeals, if so to what relief the respondents will be entitled to. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. 4. 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 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above orders and they agree with the orders passed by the Commission. 6. Thus, to the above extent, the order of the Commission stands confirmed. The petitioners are aggrieved only by the penultimate portion of the order where the Commission shifted the 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. 7. The 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion is not a power of review. But the phraseology used by the legislation is 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be non suited. Hence for all the above, order of the Settlement Commission is held to be unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the orders dated 19.1.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.1.2005 and order dated 14.7.2005, 4.2.2005, 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 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 rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
