2017 (7) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it petitions challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai under Section 245F[I] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The counsel on either side submitted that the issue involved in these writ petitions are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of R.Vijayalakshmi Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission and Others reported in [2016]73 taxmann.com 367 [Madras], wherein it has been held 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 S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 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 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 passed ....