D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The decision by the learned single Judge dated 25th April 2003 (reported in 263 ITR 186) is under challenge before us. The learned single Judge had found that rectification sought for in this case by the Department does not come within the narrow scope and ambit of section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons given in the said judgment. The department has preferred this appeal in this Court. Appellant's points:
(2.) Mr. Shome, learned senior counsel for the appellant, had pointed out that the law with regard to the power of the Settlement Commission in waiving interest is settled in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors., (1998) 230 ITR (AT) 1. It is pointd out that the Commissioner had no power to waive interest chargeable under section 234A, 234B and 234C. Therefore, it is a case covered under the provisions of section 154. Elaborate submission was made by Mr. Shome with regard to the applicability of the various decisions cited by Mr. R.N. Bajoria, learned Senior counsel for the respondents and also to the validity of the submission advanced by him. Respondent's points:
(3.) At the same time Mr. Bajoria had also made elaborate submission and had met all the submission advanced by Mr. Shome and had pointed out that the rectification that was sought for was not free from doubt. At the point of time when the rectification was sought for the decision in Anjun Ghaswala (supra) had not come and was pending reference to a larger Bench of five Judges and was decided substitute to the stage when the rectification was asked for. Similarly, the other decision in CIT v. Damani Brothers, 254 ITR 91 on which Mr. Shome had anchored his submission was also pending decision before the three Judges bench, which decided the same later on. Therefore, it does not come within the purview of the scope where section 154 can be applied. Facts:;