TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the waiver of interest in terms of Settlement Commission's directions contained in its order dated 11.10.2002. In other words, we adopt the same directions for modification of the Settlement Commission's original order dated 11.08.2000." - can Quashed order could be relied upon by the High Court much less for making it a part of their order for issuing a writ - Appeal against above observation in High Court order - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that when the Settlement Commission passed the first order on 11.08.2000 disposing of the application of the appellants(asseesee), the issue with regard to the powers of the Settlement Commission was not settled by any decision of this Court. These two decisions of BRIJ LAL & ORS.[2010 (10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for any purpose and nor it could be relied upon by the High Court much less for making it a part of their order for issuing a writ. We consider it apposite to set aside the impugned order and the order dated 11.08.2000 passed by Settlement Commission to the extent it decided the issue in relation to waiver of interest and remand the case to the Settlement Commission to decide the issue relating to waiver of interest payable by the assessee (appellants herein) afresh keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Ghaswala (supra) and Brijlal (supra) after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned. - CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2491-2492 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.21139 And 21140 of 2017) - - - Dated:- 5-3-2019 - Abhay Manoh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Settlement Commission made certain additions and waived interest chargeable under Sections 234A, 234 B and 234C of the Act. 8. The appellants (assessee) felt aggrieved and filed rectification applications before the Settlement Commission on 29.12.2000 for amending its order dated 11.08.2000. The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) also felt aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2000 and filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act before the Settlement Commission on 26.07.2002. 9. By order dated 11.10.2002, the Settlement Commission dismissed the applications filed by the appellants(assessee) and partly allowed the application filed by the respondents(Revenue) rectifying its order dated 11.08.2000 insofar as it pertai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appeals by way of special leave in this Court. 13. So, the short question which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the petitions(SCAs) and thereby was justified in modifying the order dated 11.08.2000 passed by the Settlement Commission. 14. Heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submissions filed by the parties, we are inclined to allow the appeals and remand the case to the Settlement Commission for deciding the matter in question afresh on merits keeping in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIXA of the said Act? (II) If answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what is the terminal point for levy of such interest - whether such interest should be computed up to the date of the order under Section 245D( 1) or up to the date of the order of the Commission under Section 245D( 4)? (III) Whether the Settlement Commission could reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking Section 154 of the said Act so as to levy interest under Section 234B, though it was not so done in the original proceedings? 19. After examining these questions, this Court speaking through Justice S.H. Kapadia, the then learned CJI, answered the questions as under : (1) Sections 234A, 234B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court instead of going into the merits of the issue, should have set aside the order dated 11.08.2000 passed by the Settlement Commission and remanded the case to the Settlement Commission for deciding the issue relating to waiver of interest payable under Sections 234A , 234B, and 234C of the Act afresh keeping in view the scope and the extent of powers of the Settlement Commissioner in relation to waiver of interest as laid down in the said two decisions. 23. The High Court, however, committed a jurisdictional error when it observed in Para 13 (quoted above) that they (High Court) adopt the directions contained in the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.10.2002 and then went on to make the said directions as a part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
