2016 (9) TMI 1006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional Bench of the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Chennai, dated 21.03.2003 in a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue to rectify the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, dated 30.03.1999 in an Application filed by the Writ Petitioner on 13.03.2003. 3. The only issue to be considered is as to what would be the terminal date for the purpose of charging interest under Section 234-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.5553 to 5558 of 2008,dated 26.07.2016 (R.Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench and others ) and this Court, after taking into consideratio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 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 U.Narayanamma vs. Government of India, (2013) 352 ITR 598 (AP) 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 In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 9.1.2005, 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 respondent is quashed, then it would amount to setting aside the rate of interest as ordered b....