TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings for reassessment and it was not necessary to issue notice to every member of the family and that after the order under section 25A the Income-tax Officer had to make an assessment of the income of the family as if no partition had taken place and calculate the amount of tax payable thereon as if it was payable by one unit. The facts of the binding decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Narayana Badhani v. CIT 20 ITR 594 are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that the Assessing Officer was reasonable and justified in starting the reassessment proceedings and that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reasonable and justified. We are also of the opinion that in view of judicial discipline judgment of the higher courts should prevail upon the decisions of the lower authorities. In view of the binding decision of the Supreme Court quoted supra, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this account. Coming to the objection on the method of accounting applied by the assessee it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dealt with this objection of the appellant in paras 4, 5 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act or law in arriving at the decision. But this power, Courts have cautioned, has to be used very cautiously and sparingly and only in appropriate and deserving cases where the Tribunal is satisfied that on account of the glaring and patent mistake committed by the Tribunal grave prejudice and injustice has been caused to the litigants before it in the appeal. 5. From the submissions made in the written application which we have narrated above, it is not the case of the assessee that there has been glaring and patent mistake either of facts or law committed by this Tribunal. The grievance of the assessee is that each and every paper to which reference was made or attention drawn at the time of hearing of the appeals have not been threadbared and elaborately discussed as to how on the basis of these documents the appeals were still not allowable. The second grievance made out by the assessee is that there is no discussion as to how the two judgments of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts cited and relied upon were not relevant and had no applicability so as to allow the appeal. In view of these, the assessee wants recall of the order and a fresh decision after hearing. 6. We fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary for the Tribunal to give det More or less a similar type of grievance was raised before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Valivetti Sriramulu v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 551 and we deem it fit and proper to extract from the said judgment, as published in the reports at page 553, the below given observations of their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court :- "We do not think that Mr. Ramarao is justified in contending that the Tribunal has arrived at the figure of Rs. 20,000 without any consideration of the evidence and has fixed it arbitrarily. The Tribunal has expressly stated that the Officer has given sound reasons for the additions made by him. The reference can only be to the Income-tax Officer insofar as the additions made by him were affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal felt it unnecessary to restate those reasons once again in the order. Though, in our opinion, it would have been more desirable on the part of the Tribunal to give in its own words, briefly it may be, the reasons for their decision, it cannot be said that the Tribunal acted arbitrarily and fixed the figure of Rs. 20,000." From the above decisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, does not stand to reason that if the power of review is not with the Tribunal, it can nonetheless exercise such a power indirectly in terms of section 254(2) when it cannot be done so directly there being no specific power conferred. As the Tribunal is not a Court it has no power to review its own orders. 11. The normal rule therefore is that the remedy by way of review is a creature by statute. And if the statute does not contain power for review, then the power cannot be exercised at all. Review proceedings imply those proceedings where a party as of right can apply for reconsideration of the matter already decided upon after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties. But such a remedy were peat is available only if provided by the statute. Even assuming that the statute does confer power-of review then such a power of review can only be exercised within the parameters fixed by the statute itself. Therefore, this Tribunal having delivered a judgment on 13-8-1997 which by operation of law has become final is not eligible, authorised or empowered to review its own decision in a subsequent proceeding brought either in the guise of rectification procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
