AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by the Settlement Commission in following background: 3. The respondent had approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of its case. Such proceedings came to be disposed of by the Settlement Commission by an order dated 11.08.2000. In such order, the Settlement Commission granted waiver of interest on the tax payable by the assessee as under: "22. A request has been made for waiver of interest chargeable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act in both the cases. In the case of Kakadia Builders P. Ltd. returns for assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were due after the date of search. Considering the same, the interest chargeable for nine out of twelve months delay in 1994-95 is waived. Interest u/s. 234A for 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors (supra), waiver of interest could be granted only in terms of CBDT's circular dated 23.05.1996. The Commission, therefore, provided as under: "3. We have examined the issue. There is no doubt that after the Supreme Court's judgement in Ghaswala's case, the law of the land is that the Commission's powers to waive interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is circumscribed to the extent set out in CBDT's Notification dated 23.05.1996 issued from F. No. 400/234/954-IT(B). That being the case, any other variation would fall to be a mistake apparent from the record. We notice that in the case of the company, the Commission has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direction with respect to charging of interest exercising powers of rectification. The Supreme Court in case of Brij Lal and ors vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 477 (SC) held that the Settlement Commission had no power of rectification. 4. In that view of the matter, on this short group the impugned order is required to be set aside. We clarify that we do not express any opinion on the Revenue's contention which finds favour with the Settlement Commission that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and ors (supra), no portion of interest liability of the assessee could have been waived or reduced by the Commission. If the Revenue was aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, 1961 and not beyond. In other words, therefore, if any such interest was charged, the same was not permissible. He, however, strongly opposed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches. He would contend that the department has filed these petitions in the year 2014 challenging the order of Settlement Commission passed way back on 11.08.2000. There is thus gross and inordinate delay of 14 years in filing the writ petitions. Primarily on this ground, he opposed the petitions. 8. If we peruse the facts minutely it would immediately emerge that there is no delay on part of the department in filing petition. We may recall, after the Commission passed the order of settlement on 11.08.2000 both sides i.e. the department as we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... virtue of the High Court judgement dated 03.03.2014 that such order of the rectification came to be set aside thereby reviving the original unrectified order of the Settlement Commission dated 11.08.2000. The very right of the department to challenge the order of Settlement Commission therefore arose after 03.03.2014 by virtue of the judgement of the High Court. Till then, the department had no cause to feel aggrieved by the order of Settlement Commission. If there was no order adverse to the department, the department could not have challenged the same. Soon after the High Court passed the said order dated 03.03.2014, the department filed the present petitions. 11. Looked from such angle, we do not find any delay or laches on part of t....