Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (8) TMI 865

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee . 2. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The assessee filed a settlement application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act on 19.1.1996 for settlement of his case pertaining to assessment years 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. By order dated 28.8.1996 in S.A.No.21/V/88/95-IT, the said application was allowed to be proceeded with under Section 245D(1) of the 1961 Act. 3. Likewise, the assessee filed another settlement application under Section 245C of the 1961 Act on 4.3.1998 for settlement of his case pertaining to assessment years 1995-1996. By order dated 27.5.1998, the said application was allowed to be proceeded with under Section 245D(1) of the 1961 Act. 4. The Settlement Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nterest under Section 234B of the 1961 Act, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carrier, reported in (2003) 126 Taxman 321, where the Supreme Court held that interest under Section 234B is to be payable till the date on which the Settlement Commission passes the order under Section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. 7. The Settlement Commission, vide order dated 28.11.2003, held that there was no case for waiver of interest leviable under Section 234B of the 1961 Act and that the interest under Section 234B of the 1961 Act would be charged up to the date of the order under Section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. 8. The assessee filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.6153 of 2004, challenging the said order dated 28.11.2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 61 Act. To fortify the said argument, he placed reliance on the decisions in (i) Brij Lal and others v. CIT, supra; and (ii) U.Narayanamma and others v. Government of India, reported in (2013) 352 ITR 598 (AP). 12. Section 154 of the 1961 Act reads as under: "Section 154. Rectification of mistake. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may, (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act ; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143; (c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB. (1A) Where any matter has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Assessing Officer shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee or the deductor or the collector. (6) Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee or the deductor or the collector, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee or the deductor or the collector, as the case may be a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be issued under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pressly or by necessary implication. In this case, there is no power of review. However, the power of rectifying an apparent mistake under Section 154 of the 1961 Act includes wide power to amend the order, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or increasing the liability of the assessee. 16. In M.A.Murthy v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 264 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterated that the decision of the Supreme Court that enunciated a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of the stage of pendency, because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, law from the inception. The law declared by the Supreme Court has effect not only from the date of the decision, but from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates