P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee of income-tax under the jurisdiction of the third respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Calicut.
2. The petitioner approached the second respondent, Settlement Commission of Income-tax, Madras, for settlement of their income-tax cases for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. On hearing him and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the second respondent passed exhibit P-2 order. As per exhibit P-2 order, consequential orders are directed to be passed by the third respondent regarding interest. In paragraph 11 of exhibit P-2, it is seen that interest under Section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), wherever leviable will be levied according to law and interest under Section 215/217 of the Act will be levied from the due date for a period of six months from the date of filing the returns of income. Consequent to exhibit P-2, the third respondent passed exhibit P-3 order assessing interest under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. The petitioner who is aggrieved filed exhibit P-5 representation before the second respondent in which he sought for modification regarding interest levied which was rejected as per exhibit P-6. Exhibit P-6 is under challenge.
3. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to impress upon this court that exhibit P-3 order is bad inasmuch as there is overlapping of the period for which interest is ordered to be paid under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act. He also finds fault with the second respondent for treating exhibit P-5 petition as an application for review. On the other hand, it should have been treated as an application for correction of exhibit P-2 order, contends counsel.
4. Interest is payable under Section 139(8) for delay in filing the return and interest under Section 215 is payable for delay in payment of advance tax. The two sections deal with entirely different fact situation. The interest levied in respect of two different lapses is permissible under law. Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice that the discretion vested in the third respondent has been exercised by him as could be seen from exhibit P-3. He points out that interest was payable from April 1, 1988 till October 25, 1992, the date on which exhibit P-2 was passed. But interest under Section 215 of the Act is claimed only up to January 31, 1990. Thus, it is contended that substantial benefit has been given to the petitioner.
5. Though there is no power fur (he second respondent to review its own orders, the application was considered on the merits also. In the circumstances, I cannot find fault with the second respondent for not treating the application as one for correction of the mistake crept in exhibit P-2 order.
6. In view of what is stated above, the original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.