AOP OF SANJAYBHAI R PATEL Vs. ASSESSING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common issue is involved in all these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners have filed these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Settlement Commission, respondent No. 2 herein, on 20th March, 2003, under S. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 withdrawing the reduction or waiver of interest granted by the Settlement Commission under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, while passing the orders under S. 245D(4) of the Act on 31st March, 1999.

(3.) MR. J.P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners in all these petitions submitted that the Settlement Commission does not have any power to rectify its order under S. 154 of the Act inasmuch as such power is vested in an IT authority referred to in S. 116 of the Act. He has further submitted that the Settlement Commission is not an IT authority referred to in S. 116 of the Act. Over and above this contention, he has also submitted that the past debatibility of the issue does not disappear because of a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 710 (Cal). Prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaswala's case (supra) the law was understood to the effect that the Settlement Commission has the power to waive or reduce interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C and in any case, the position of law prior to the Supreme Court decision was that whether such power was there or not was debatable and hence such detabable issue cannot be made the subject-matter of proceedings under S. 154 of the Act.