9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Income Tax Settlement Commission, dated 19.02.2004. 3. In respect of the assessment years 1988-89 to 1992-93, relating to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and for the assessment year 1995-96, relating to the fifth petitioner, the Settlement Commission passed a consolidated order dated 07.01.2000 under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The effect of the said order is granting waiver of interest under Sections 234A & 234B. In the said orders, the terminal date for charging of interest under Section 234B was fixed as date of completion of proceedings under Section 143(1)(a) or upto the date of assessment under Section 143(3) or upto the date of return, as the case may be, for all the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners only on account of the fact that it would be conclusive and there would be an end to all disputes. Inspite of such contest before the Settlement Commission, the Settlement Commission has passed the impugned order and has re-opened the earlier order passed by it. This has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court in this writ petition. 4. In an identical circumstance, in the case of R. Vijayalakshmi V. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Addl. Bench 488/489, Anna Salai, Chennai- 35 and 2 others, in W.P. Nos. 5553 to 5558 of 2008, this Court considered as to whether the action of the Commission in entertaining the miscellaneous petition after the conclusion of the proceedings is valid and whether the terminal date for chargin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 01.06.2011. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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...." 5. The Revenue does not dispute the legal principle laid down in the above decision, which has been followed by this Court in several other cases as well. Thus, by applying the above decision to the petitioners in the present case, the only conclusion that can be arrived at, is to hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
