TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner under Section 245D(6B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for rectification of the order, has been dismissed. 2. The facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner being an individual assessee filed an application under Section 245D(4) of the Act before the Settlement Commission for settlement on 24.2.2015 disclosing additional income as prescribed under Section 245C of the Act for the period 2007-08 to 2013-14. The said application was decided by the Settlement Commission vide order dated 28.11.2016. Noticing certain errors in the order dated 28.11.2016, the petitioner preferred an application (Annexure P- 1) under Section 245D(6B) of the Act for rectification of the mistake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Raj Singh and another). 4. Shri Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, arguing in support of the impugned order has contended that the proviso attached to Section 245D(6B) of the Act creates a bar in entertaining an application for rectification after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which an order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act is passed by the Settlement Commission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Section 245D of the Act lays down procedure on receipt of an application under Section 245C of the Act. Under sub-section (6B) thereof, the Settlement Commission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act may be rectified at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed or at any time within a period of six months from the end of the month in which an application for rectification has been made by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant, as the case may be. The first proviso to subsection (6B) further creates an embargo for making any such application for rectification after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which an order under sub-section (4) is passed by the Settlement Commission. In the present case, the order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D was passed by the Settlement Commission on 28.11.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said Act makes it obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. It is in this background, the Court held that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12(2) of the said Act would directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18 and therefore, the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the application made by the appellant in the said proceedings was barred under the proviso to Section 18 of the said Act. The relevant extract of the said decision reads as under:- "7. In this connection it is material to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature." However, in the present case, under sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act, there is no such requirement expressly provided for communication of the order of which rectification is sought, rather the said provision entitles both the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant to seek rectification of any mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act within six months from the end of the month when the order, rectification of which ....