TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment), Calicut. The petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income-tax, Madras, for settlement of their income-tax cases for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent passed exhibit P-2 order. As per exhibit P-2 order, consequential orders are directed to be pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impress upon this court that exhibit P-3 order is bad inasmuch as there is overlapping of the period for which interest is ordered to be paid under sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. He also finds fault with the second respondent for treating exhibit P-5 petition as an application for review. On the other hand, it should have been treated as an application for correction of exhibit P-2 order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond respondent to review its own orders, the application was considered on the merits also. In the circumstances, I cannot find fault with the second respondent for not treating the application as one for correction of the mistake crept in exhibit P-2 order. In view of what is stated above, the original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
