1998 (12) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the petitioner attempted to 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 co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here is no power for the second 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.    

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X