TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, Standing Counsel for Income Tax ORDER Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai, dated 21.03.2003 in a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue to rectify the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, dated 30.03.1999 in an Application filed by the Writ Petitioner on 13.03.2003. 3. The only issue to be considered is as to what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be read in isolation but it should be read in tandem with Section 245(I) and if it is done, then it is to be held that there is no power of review conferred on the Commission to reopen the proceedings. This position held the field till an amendment was inserted under Section 6(b) of Section 245D by Finance Act 2011 with effect from 1.6.2011. Even the said provision 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 Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmittedly, these decisions were rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court much after the final order was passed by the Commission under Section 245D(4). 10. Rudimentary legal principle is that subsequent development of law cannot be a ground to exercise review jurisdiction and that cannot be taken into consideration as an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, on that ground also, the Department should 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 9.1.2005, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
