TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement Commission dated 27.08.2002 suo-motu revising its final order dated 19.06.1998 and the second suo-motu order dated 11.03.2003. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and there is no authority for the Commission to rectify such mistake that too by way of suo-motu action. 3. The power of the Settlement Commission to rectify its order much belatedly by way of an application or otherwise came up for consideration before this Court in the case of R.Vijayalakshmi v. Income Tax Settlement, Commission Additional Bench, Chennai, and others (W.P.Nos.5553 to 5558 of 2008, dated 26.07.2016). The contention raised by the revenue to justify their action is identical to that of the contention raised in this writ pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....This position held the field till an amendment was inserted under Section 6(b) of Section 245D by Finance Act 2011 with effect from 1.6.2011. Even the said provision is not a power of review. But the phraseology used by the legislation is rectification and such rectification can be done on any mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, such power exercisable under sub Section 6D of Section 245D can be exercised only to rectify a mistake and such mistake should be apparent from the record. Thus, even as per the amendment made by Finance Act, 2011, power of review is not conferred on the Settlement Commission. 8. In the case of Smt.U.Narayanamma, Writ Petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercise review jurisdiction and that cannot be taken into consideration as an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, on that ground also, the Department should be non suited. Hence for all the above, order of the Settlement Commission is held to be unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the orders dated 19.1.2005, 13.12.2004 and 19.1.2005 and order dated 14.7.2005, 4.2.2005, insofar as it relates to the computation of terminal date for charging the interest under Section 234B alone and the order passed by the Settlement Commission dated 8.8.2007 are quashed. 11. After the above order was dictated, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department submitted that if the order passed by the third respon....