2013 (6) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted February 26, 2004, are challenged on the singular ground that the Commission has no power to rectify its earlier order passed under section 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Writ Petition No. 17213 of 2004 is illustrative of the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles common to all the writ petitions. The impugned order of the Commission pertains to the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94. Earlier an order dated September 22, 1999, was passed by the Commission under section 245D(4) of the Act granting waiver of interest under section 234A of the Act for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Interest was charged without waiver for the assessment year 1991-92. Waiver of interest under section 234B w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated February 26, 2004, concluding that there occurred a mistake in the earlier order as regards charging of interest up to the date of proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act ; that the error could be rectified in the light of the Supreme Court decision referred to above ; that as regards interest under section 234A there is no entitlement for waiver for the assessment year 1993-94, consequently interest under the said provision for the said assessment year must be charged fully ; and that interest under section 234B is to be charged up to the date of the order of the Commission under section 245D(4) of the Act. Thus, exercising rectification powers not available to the Commission, the impugned order dated February 26, 2004, was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gram Panchayat was considered invalid on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Invalidation of the order in challenge would, therefore, result in revival of the earlier invalid order. In the circumstances, relief was refused. In Gadde Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1966 SC 828, relief was declined since it would have led to revival of a patently void order. Such is not the error in the present case. The earlier order of the Commission dated September 22, 1999, though contrary to the Board Circular referred to and considered in the light of the judgment in CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 (SC) was an error within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not an error that goes to the root of its jurisdiction. The app....