TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y cannot be condoned. Section 254(2) prescribes that Tribunal could rectify the error only within a period of four years. Since the application was filed beyond four years, delay cannot be condoned. Next it was argued that the assessee did not have any reasonable cause in filing the belated miscellaneous application. 3. Both the parties were heard on this point. Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") prescribes as under:-- "The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying 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 asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et coeluim (Justice should be done even if the heaven falls). The procedure should be the handmaid and not the mistress of legal justice. Cause of justice should not be subservient to the rules of procedure. We have gone through the file. The issue involved in the present case is prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT[1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). Under article 141 of the Constitution of India, the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court is a binding precedent. The law is interpreted by the Apex Court is the law as it always has been. Denying the opportunity to the parties to argue the miscellaneous application on the jejune ground of processual lapse would tantamo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said agreement. The General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of one of the persons nominated by the Company thereby authorising to execute, sign and deliver all the documents which might be required for the transfer of the said property in favour of the third party. 7. Assessing Officer found during the course of assessment proceedings that registered sale deed was not executed in respect of the said property till the closing of the year i.e., 31st March, 1991. As such, he denied depreciation claimed on the said property. He opined that assessee can not be considered as legal owner of the property. As such requirement of section 32 of the Act was not fulfilled. The first appellate authority upheld the action of the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who does not hold legal title to the asset. On the contrary in para 53 of the judgment the Supreme Court has clearly mentioned that except in the context of section 22 of the Act and under the common law, owner means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as, Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, etc.". 10. Shri Ganeshnan, learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mysore Menerals Ltd. In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 32 of the Act confers benefit on the assessee. The provisions should be so interpreted and the words used therein should be assigned such meaning, as would enabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly with the requirements of the law such as the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act etc. 11. It is a trite law cannonised in the dictum: "Stare decides et non quieta movere". The idea inculcated in the dictum is: to adhere to precedent and not to unsettle things which are settled. It applies to litigated facts in necessarily decided questions: Apart from Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the policy of Courts is to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled points. When Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to certain set of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same. Every new discovery of argumentative novelty cannot compel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was that the levy of excess dividend tax was at no time good and, therefore, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer levying excess dividend tax was bad at its inception, on the date it was made, notwithstanding that the decision of the Supreme Court was given subsequent to that date. It was held to be a mistake apparent from the record. There are catena of cases where it was decided that an assessment order, which was on the face of it a good order at the time when it was passed, may subsequently reveal a mistake apparent from the record in the light of a subsequent Supreme Court decision, and the Officer who made the order will then have jurisdiction to rectify the order so as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
