TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) that in the alternative the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to recall its earlier order of4-3-1978and hear the matter de novo on merits; (d) the Hon'ble Tribunal may pass such other and further orders which may in the interest of justice be deemed necessary." 2. Brief facts may be mentioned so as to make the narration complete. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business at Tumsar, Tehsil and district Bhandara (Maharashtra). The assessee-firm was reassessed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1958-59 by the ITO. For these assessment years penalties were also levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty appeals filed by the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment against the maintainability of the present miscellaneous application and Shri Wazir Singh the learned counsel for the department argued that there could be only one rectification application on the same point; that the present application moved on 23-12-1982 could not seek to rectify the original order dated 4-3-1978 passed more than 4 years earlier and that the application could not also lie against the order dated 24-3-1982 because that was an order passed by the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act. He argued that rectification could be made only of the original order in appeal. He also submitted that the Tribunal being statutory, it had no inherent powers and that the right to review an order was not a part of any inherent p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wers. According to him there was no statutory bar to the same. 4. We have considered the rival submissions as also the decisions referred to above on the preliminary objection. We had not heard the parties on merits. Section 254(2) provides that the Tribunal may, at any time within 4 years from the date of the order, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the ITO. It is, therefore, quite clear that the power of rectification of mistakes apparent from the record has been conferred by section 254(2) only in respect of orders passed under section 254(1). It appears to us that furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice; and 5. The inherent power cannot be exercised to reconsider or review an order. It was not disputed before us that the errors sought to be pointed out on behalf of the assessee in its successive miscellaneous applications were the same. If the present miscellaneous application is treated as directed against the order dated4-3-1978in the penalty appeal, the application would be clearly barred by time being beyond the period of 4 years specified under section 254(2). In case the instant miscellaneous application is treated as directed against the earlier order dated24-3-1982under section 254(2), such an application would not be maintainable in terms of section 254(2) since the application could be directed only against an order un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 19(2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act also used the following words : "... 'that Tribunal shall have all such powers in disposing of the appeal as it has in respect of appeals preferred to it under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922'...." Therefore, though at first sight, this decision appears to support the assessee, it is of no avail if we look into the peculiar facts which obtained in that case. Here it may be pertinent to point out that this matter had gone up to the Supreme Court in S.B. Singar Singh Sons' case. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court holding that the High Court had wrongly assumed that the ground relating to the adjustment of profits based on variation of average capital had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bay High Court that the assessee could move the Tribunal for rehearing the appeal on the ground that rule 24 was invalid only after February 1969 when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment setting at rest the conflict of opinion on the validity of rule 24. It was held that as the petition was filed in June 1969 it was not inordinately delayed. The Hon'ble High Court held that the decision of the Tribunal rendered in 1961 became a nullity and the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in 1969 and the Tribunal was wrong in holding that this decision in 1961 was only a mistake apparent on the face of the record requiring rectification. It was also held that even if the decision of the Tribunal rendered in 1961 was not a nullity but only an er ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
