TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 701
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of R.Vijayalakshmi V. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai, in W.P.Nos.5553 to 5558 of 2008 and therefore, it is submitted that, that part of the order of the Commission requires to be set aside. 3. It is seen that the Revenue filed Special Leave challenging the order of the Settlement Commission. In the instant case, in C.A.Nos.110 114 of 2001 and 5836 5840 of 2000, this is along with the other batch of similar matters were clubbed together and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax V. Nagraj Chandanmal and Company in Civil Appeal Nos.8705-8706 of 1996, disposed of the appeals, by a common order, dated 12.11.2002, which reads as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to see as to whether the two circulars referred therein issued by the Central Board dated 02.05.1994 and 23.05.1996 would be applicable. Thus, in other words, the remand was a limited remand with a specific direction and the Commission cannot proceed beyond the said direction. In terms of the direction, the Commission has considered the matter and passed the impugned orders thereby withdrawing the waiver of interest and holding as hereunder: Settlement Application No.:13/CHN/61/95-IT & 682/CHN/70/98/IT [W.P.No.5363/2005]: "1. Internet u/s 234A (i)Interest for the A.Y.s 1990-91 to 1992-93 waived to the extent of 75%, 80% and 60% respectively is not covered under the Board's circular and is accordingly withdrawn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed on the decisions in the case of Hindustan Bulk Carrier (259 ITR 449) and CIT V. Damani Bros. (259 ITR 475), the correctness of such order is being questioned in these writ petitions. 7. The very issue was considered by this Court in the case R.Vijayalaksmi (cited supra) and it was held that the Commission had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter for the purpose of shifting the terminal date. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials placed on record, the first issue to be answered is with regard to the power of the Commission to reopen its proceedings. Section 245-I of the Act states that any order of the Commission passed under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en 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 Commission on the ground that the Commission has no power to rectify its earlier order even under Section 245D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Lal, held that the order passed by the Settlement Commission rectifying its earlier order cannot be sustained and must perish. In the said case, rectification was sought for by the commission on the ground that the order passe....