TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (4) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ners for several assessment years having been given, the petitioners filed applications before respondent No. 1 for settlement of their tax liabilities. The final hearing of those settlement applications before respondent No. 1 took place on November 27, 1997, after the reports were filed by the Department on those applications. After considering all the facts, respondent No. 1 desired that in order to settle the matter, the petitioners should offer some additional amount in their settlement applications and the petitioners agreed to the said proposal of paying further amount over and above the amount already offered in their settlement applications. By orders dated November 27, 1997, respondent No. 1 accepted the additional amount offered and disposed of all the settlement applications filed by the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, by those orders, respondent No. 1 further directed that in view of the co-operation extended by the petitioners in settlement of their cases, no interest under various sections would be charged. (b) On March 1/4, 2002, the Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t seems the Commission has waived such interest by presuming that they have inherent power under section 245D(6) to waive or reduce interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961." Mr. Bajoria thus contends that this case cannot be said to be one where there is any mistake apparent from the record. Secondly, Mr. Bajoria contends that on the date of filing of the application for review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 was not final as its correctness was doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Damani Brothers [2002] 254 ITR 91, which referred the matter for consideration of a larger Bench. Mr. Bajoria points out that such decision was delivered on February 11, 2002, and thus on the date of filing the applications for rectification, there was some doubt even as to the finality of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaswala's case [2001] 252 ITR 1. Mr. Bajoria thus contends that respondent No. 1 should have rejected the application as it was not a clear case of rectification of mistake on the basis of a settled Supreme Court judgment. Thirdly, Mr. Bajoria c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commission cannot be clarified except under very limited circumstances. In this connection, he relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Patel Desai and Co. v. Asst. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 689. Mr. Shome further submits that the scope of an application under section 154 of the Act is much wider than the provision contained in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Shome contends that the subsequent contrary decision given by a superior court on the question decided by the Commission can afford a ground of rectification of the original order provided such application is filed within the period of limitation. Mr. Shome, in this connection, relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nav Nirman P. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 and that of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579. He further relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.V.K. Seshavataram v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 633. Lastly, as regards the scope of section 154 of the Act, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anchor Pressin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there was no reference to either section 234A, 234B or 234C or 245D(6) or exercise of inherent power. Thus for the purpose of understanding the intention of the Commission while giving relief to the petitioners detailed investigation of the entire records is necessary. Secondly, at the time of filing of the application under section 154, the sub sequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 252 ITR 1 was doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Damani Brothers on February 11, 2002, being subsequently reported in [2002] 254 ITR 91. Therefore, on the date of filing of the application in March, 2002, Ghaswala's case [2001] 252 ITR 1 was not final and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. If there were two opinions on a point of law by two separate Benches of the apex court, and the matter was referred to a larger Bench, the matter cannot be called "settled" justifying rectification on the basis of Ghaswala's case [2001] 252 ITR 1. Over and above, it is the definite case of the assessees that in these cases, the circulars issued by the Department authorised grant of waiver of interest. Therefore, even if it is assumed ....