TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside thereby reviving the original unrectified order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000. The very right of the department to challenge the order of Settlement Commission therefore arose after 03.03.2014 by virtue of the judgement of the High Court. Till then, the department had no cause to feel aggrieved by the order of Settlement Commission. If there was no order adverse to the department, the department could not have challenged the same. Soon after the High Court passed the said order dated 03.03.2014, the department filed the present petitions. Looked from such angle, we do not find any delay or laches on part of the department in moving these petitions. Delay, if any, is duly explained. Had the department delayed filing these petitions after the High Court reversed the rectification order of the Settlement Commission by the judgement dated 03.03.2014, we would have certainly considered the opposition of the assessees. We must clarify that to the extent, the Settlement Commission in the order of rectification had turned down the prayers of the department, such issue cannot be re-agitated in the present petitions. In other words, the department not having c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 is waived. Interest u/s. 234A for 1995-96n is chargeable for three months only which shall be charged as per law. In the facts of the case, interest u/s. 234A for 1992-93 and 1993-94 is waived to the extent of 50%. Interest chargeable u/s. 234B for all the four years will be reduced by 50%. Regarding Shri Manharlal M. Kakadia, interest u/s.234A for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 will be charged for eighteen and six months respectively. The balance interest is waived. Interest u/s. 234A for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 will be charged as per law. Interest u/s 234B will be reduced by 50% of the chargeable amount in all the four years under settlement. Interest u/s. 234C in both the cases will be charged as per law. 4. It appears that the department as well as the assessee both moved applications for rectification of such order of the Settlement Commission. Both sides had dispute about waiver or non-waiver of interest granted by the Settlement Commission in its order of settlement. The department argued that, by virtue of the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors reported in 252 ITR 1 , the Settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Settlement Commission passed in rectification application filed by the department by making following observations: 3. It could thus be seen that the Commission Settlement modified its direction with respect to charging of interest exercising powers of rectification. The Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and ors vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 477 (SC) held that the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. 4. In that view of the matter, on this short group the impugned order is required to be set aside. We clarify that we do not express any opinion on the Revenue's contention which finds favour with the Settlement Commission that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors (supra), no portion of interest liability of the assessee could have been waived or reduced by the Commission. If the Revenue was aggrieved by such order of the Settlement Commission it ought to have challenged the same in accordance with law. In any case, application for rectification was not maintainable as the statute stood at the relevant time as interpreted by the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent rectification application was rejected by the Settlement Commission did not carry the issue any further. 9. The High Court allowed the petitions of the assesses by a judgement dated 03.03.2014 on the limited ground that as declared by the Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and ors vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. While doing so, the Court also observed that the impugned order is quashed leaving it open to the Revenue to avail its remedy against the original order of Settlement Commission. It was thereupon that these petitions came to be filed on or around 22.04.2014. 10. Above noted chain of events would reveal that the Settlement Commission having accepted substantially the application of the rectification filed by the department in the year 2002, the department had no cause or grievance against the rectified order of the Settlement Commission. Once the Settlement Commission accepted the rectification prayer of the department, there was no order adverse to the department which could have been challenged. It was only by virtue of the High Court judgement dated 03.03.2014 that such order of the rectification c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
