TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which was earlier allowed by the original order under section 245D(4) of the Act. By the orders impugned, direction for charging interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act has been given. The facts giving rise to filing all these applications may be summarised thus: (a) Notices under section 148 of the Act for reassessment of the petitioners for several assessment years having been given, the petitioners filed applications before respondent No. 1 for settlement of their tax liabilities. The final hearing of those settlement applications before respondent No. 1 took place on November 27, 1997, after the reports were filed by the Department on those applications. After considering all the facts, respondent No. 1 desired that in order to settle the matter, the petitioners should offer some additional amount in their settlement applications and the petitioners agreed to the said proposal of paying further amount over and above the amount already offered in their settlement applications. By orders dated November 27, 1997, respondent No. 1 accepted the additional amount offered and disposed of all the settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 154 of the Act filed by the Commissioner of income-tax, Mr. Bajoria points out that even in the body of the application, the Commissioner has made the following admission in para. 2: "The Commission has not specified which interest they were waiving but since the assessment years involved are 1989-90 to 1992-93, it is presumed that they are waiving interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. It seems the Commission has waived such interest by presuming that they have inherent power under section 245D(6) to waive or reduce interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961." Mr. Bajoria thus contends that this case cannot be said to be one where there is any mistake apparent from the record. Secondly, Mr. Bajoria contends that on the date of filing of the application for review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 was not final as its correctness was doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Damani Brothers [2002] 254 ITR 91, which referred the matter for consideration of a larger Bench. Mr. Bajoria points out that such decision was deliv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution of India it is not open to the High Court to decide whether the findings recorded by the Settlement Commission on a question of fact or even on a question of law are correct or not. According to him, having regard to the objective underlying the constitution of the Settlement Commission and the nature of function entrusted to and the power of the Commission, the conclusions both on question of fact and law reached by the Commission cannot be clarified except under very limited circumstances. In this connection, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Patel Desai and Co. v. Asst. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 689. Mr. Shome further submits that the scope of an application under section 154 of the Act is much wider than the provision contained in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Shome contends that the subsequent contrary decision given by a superior court on the question decided by the Commission can afford a ground of rectification of the original order provided such application is filed within the period of limitation. Mr. Shome, in this connection, relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication under section 154, the Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded on the basis of presumption that the Commission waived interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act since the assessment years involved were 1989-90 to 1992-93. The application further alleged that the Commission waived such interest by presuming that they had inherent power under section 245D(6) although in the orders dated November 27, 1997, there was no reference to either section 234A, 234B or 234C or 245D(6) or exercise of inherent power. Thus for the purpose of understanding the intention of the Commission while giving relief to the petitioners detailed investigation of the entire records is necessary. Secondly, at the time of filing of the application under section 154, the sub sequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 was doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Damani Brothers on February 11, 2002, being subsequently reported in [2002] 254 ITR 91. Therefore, on the date of filing of the application in March, 2002, Ghaswala's case [2001] 252 ITR 1 was not final and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
