1998 (12) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction of the third respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Calicut. The petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income-tax, Madras, for settlement of their income-tax cases for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent passed exhibit P-2 order. As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it P-6 is under challenge. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to impress upon this court that exhibit P-3 order is bad inasmuch as there is overlapping of the period for which interest is ordered to be paid under sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. He also finds fault with the second respondent for treating exhibit P-5 petition as an application for review. On the other hand, it should ha....