ORDER By the Court We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1, decided by the Constitution Bench, the question whether sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are at all applicable to proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act did not arise for consideration and the judgment of the Constitution Bench proceeds sub silentio on the point by assuming that these sections are so applicable. However, this is a plea which we deem proper to be considered by a Constitution Bench.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted that in the case of CIT v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala (2001) 252 ITR 1, decided by the Constitution Bench, the question whether sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), are at all applicable to proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act did not arise for consideration and the judgment of the Constitution Bench proceeds sub silentio on the point by assuming that these sections are so applicable. However, this is a plea which we deem proper to be considered by a Constitution Bench.
3. Another question which arises for consideration is whether the Settlement Commission can reopen its concluded proceedings by having recourse to section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, though it was not done in the original proceedings. We think proper to leave this question also to be considered by the Constitution Bench in view of the far-reaching implications and the question being of frequent recurrence.
3. Another question which arises for consideration is whether the Settlement Commission can reopen its concluded proceedings by having recourse to section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, though it was not done in the original proceedings. We think proper to leave this question also to be considered by the Constitution Bench in view of the far-reaching implications and the question being of frequent recurrence.
4. Ordered accordingly.
4. Ordered accordingly.