- (1.) 1. All these matters were heard together as the points involved therein are identically same. Therefore, decision to be rendered will cover all these four matters.
(2.) The facts are more or less identical. On different dates the learned settlement Commissioner of the Income Tax Department accepted the proposal of the assesses for settlement of the cases and dues of the respective petitioners. In case of Smriti Properties Private Ltd. the assessment years related to 1989-90 to 1994-1995 and the orders were passed by the Settlement Commission by the Bench of three learned members on 16th March, 1999. By the said order, interest which would ordinarily have been chargeable under the various provisions of the said act was either partially or fully waived.
(3.) On 10th March, 2003 the Income Tax authorities filed miscellaneous petition before the Commission where by it was contended on behalf of the revenue that the said orders need rectification in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Hindustan Bulk Careers, 2003 (3) SCC 57. By this judgment the Apex Court reversing the earlier decision of the same Court rendered in case of M/s. Gulraj Engineering Construction company, 215 ITR 1 held that Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to waive interest. Since it was a question of jurisdiction of Settlement commission the direction for waiver of interest either partially or fully needed to be reviewed. Therefore, the earlier order of the Commission was mistaken, as it would appear from the records, so far the interest portion is concerned.;