Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2013 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 369 - HC - Income TaxReview of the earlier order [2010 (9) TMI 679 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] - Deduction u/s 80-IB - Whether the High Court can hear the appeal without forming substantial questions - Held that:- The court did not formulate the substantial questions of law for adjudication before hearing of the appeal on the merits - There can be no escape from the conclusion that hearing of the appeal prior to its admission has to be treated as a hearing on the admission of the appeal in order to determine if the substantial questions of law, as contended by the appellants, had or had not arisen - It was only upon having formulated the questions of law, which, according to the High Court, were the substantial questions of law for adjudication in the appeal that the appeal could or ought to have been heard. Following Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [1980 (12) TMI 181 - SUPREME COURT] - Supreme Court held that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the court or tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process and such power inheres in every court or tribunal. Following Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT] - When an order is passed by a High Court in breach of the procedure, which a statute (i.e. section 260A) has laid down, such a procedural defect shall remain open to correction by the High Court by taking resort to its plenary power of review or ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process. Following Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] - The law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly. But there may be circumstances, where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered - The doctrine of stare decisis should not deter the court from overruling an earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or proceeds upon a mistaken assumption in regard to the existence or continuance of a statutory provision or is contrary to another decision of the court - To rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience - Comfort and strength is derived from the wise and inspiring words of Justice Bronson in Pierce v. Delameter AMY - A judge ought to be wise enough to know that he is fallible and, therefore, ever ready to learn great and honest enough to discard all mere pride of opinion and follow truth wherever it may lead and courageous enough to acknowledge his errors – Decided in favour of petitioner - order to be reviewed and recalled.
|