Facts of the Case

The petitioners had approached the Income Tax Settlement Commission in 1994 by filing settlement applications under Section 245C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Settlement Commission initially passed orders under Section 245D(1) and thereafter passed final settlement orders under Section 245D(4) around 13 May 1998. These settlement orders contained various terms, including waiver of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C.

Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax moved applications before the Settlement Commission alleging that the Commission had no authority to waive mandatory statutory interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The Revenue sought rectification of the settlement orders by invoking Section 245F read with Section 154 of the Act.

The Settlement Commission issued notices, heard the parties, and thereafter passed orders rectifying the earlier settlement orders by directing levy of statutory interest in view of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala.

Aggrieved by the rectification orders, the assessees approached the Delhi High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to reopen or rectify final settlement orders.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Income Tax Settlement Commission can invoke Section 154 of the Income-tax Act to rectify a final settlement order passed under Section 245D(4).
  2. Whether a settlement order made under Section 245D(4) becomes final and conclusive under Section 245I.
  3. Whether the Settlement Commission becomes functus officio after passing a final settlement order.
  4. Whether a subsequent Supreme Court judgment declaring the law regarding levy of interest permits reopening or rectification of concluded settlement proceedings.
  5. Whether the Revenue can seek modification of settlement orders after accepting them for several years.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners contended that:

  • Orders passed under Section 245D(4) are final and conclusive by virtue of Section 245I.
  • The Settlement Commission becomes functus officio after passing a settlement order and therefore loses jurisdiction over the matter.
  • Chapter XIX-A constitutes a complete code governing settlement proceedings.
  • The Act permits reopening of settlement proceedings only in limited situations specifically provided under the Chapter, such as fraud or misrepresentation.
  • The Commission has no independent or inherent power of review or rectification.
  • The Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala held that the Commission lacked power to waive mandatory interest, but the judgment did not authorize reopening of completed settlement orders.
  • A final settlement order cannot be disturbed after several years merely because a subsequent judicial pronouncement takes a different view of the law.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue argued that:

  • Under Section 245F(1), the Settlement Commission enjoys all powers vested in an income-tax authority.
  • Since income-tax authorities possess rectification powers under Section 154, the Settlement Commission can also exercise those powers.
  • Waiver of mandatory interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C was contrary to law as declared by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala.
  • Such waiver constituted a mistake apparent from the record.
  • Therefore, the Settlement Commission was justified in rectifying the settlement orders and directing levy of statutory interest.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rectification orders passed by the Settlement Commission.

The Court held that:

  • Chapter XIX-A is a self-contained code governing settlement proceedings.
  • Once a final order is passed under Section 245D(4), the Settlement Commission ceases to exercise jurisdiction over the case.
  • The Commission becomes functus officio after passing the settlement order.
  • Section 245I expressly declares settlement orders to be final and conclusive.
  • Matters covered by such orders cannot be reopened except in circumstances expressly provided in Chapter XIX-A.
  • Section 245F does not confer a power upon the Settlement Commission to reopen final settlement orders through Section 154.
  • The power of rectification under Section 154 is unavailable after the Commission has finally disposed of the settlement proceedings.
  • A subsequent judicial decision cannot be used as a ground to reopen concluded settlement orders through rectification proceedings.
  • If the Revenue considered the original settlement orders erroneous, it ought to have challenged them through appropriate legal remedies at the relevant time.
  • The Revenue could not seek modification of accepted settlement orders after the lapse of several years merely because the legal position was later clarified by the Supreme Court.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that:

  • The Settlement Commission can reopen proceedings only where the statute expressly permits such reopening.
  • Fraud or misrepresentation leading to a settlement may attract consequences under Section 245D(6).
  • Final settlement orders enjoy statutory finality under Section 245I.
  • The Settlement Commission has no review jurisdiction and cannot invoke Section 154 to alter a concluded settlement.
  • A final decision remains binding and effective unless set aside through legally permissible proceedings.
  • The doctrine of functus officio applies to the Settlement Commission after passing an order under Section 245D(4).

Sections Involved

  • Section 154 – Rectification of Mistake Apparent from Record
  • Section 245A – Definitions
  • Section 245C – Application for Settlement
  • Section 245D(1), 245D(4) and 245D(6)
  • Section 245F – Powers and Procedure of Settlement Commission
  • Section 245H – Grant of Immunity
  • Section 245I – Finality and Conclusiveness of Settlement Orders
  • Sections 234A, 234B and 234C – Interest Provisions
  • Chapter XIX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2004:DHC:19998/BDA13042004CW33262003_155352.pdf  

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.