TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Excess Profits Tax Act. In the excess profits tax appeals, the assessee took a specific ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding adjustment of standard profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeals by one judgment. Thereupon the assessee filed second appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and, inter alia, took a definite plea with regard to the adjustment of standard profits. The two appeals in respect of excess profits tax assessment and the other two in respect of income-tax relating to the periods mentioned above were heard together and disposed of by one common judgment by the Tribunal. The assessee filed review applications in respect of the excess profits tax appeals on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have erred in not allowing to the assessee proper standard profits in accordance with the standard period subject to the adjustment on account of the increase and decrease of capital in the relevant chargeable accounting period, the view of the Income-tax Officer is wrong and untenable. The appellant was always prepared to file his computation of average capital. The lower court is not justified in refusing to give the benefit to the assessee on this account." It is not disputed even by Mr. Gopal Behari that the aforesaid ground has substance and had to be considered by the Tribunal. It is also a matter of admission that the Income-tax Officer was required to determine proper standard pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1939, sub-section (1) shall cease to have effect, but thereafter any Excess Profits Tax Officer or any person in respect of whose business an order under section 14 has been passed who objects to an order passed by an Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 16 or section 17 may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal against such order to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and 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," (Underlined by us). 21. Application of provisions of Act XI of 1922.-The provisions of sections 4A, 4B, 10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excess Profits Tax Act, the omission must be held to be deliberate. Mr. Gopal Behari contends that, even though section 35 is not included in section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the words underlined by us in section 19(2) of the Excess Profits Tax Act clearly made the provision of section 35 applicable to proceedings under the Excess Profits Tax Act. The words underlined are "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". It is clear that these words have restricted application for the purposes of disposal of appeals. The proceedings for review commence after an appeal had been disposed of. In that sense they are post-appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a Tribunal. On the basis of the legal maxim that no party shall suffer prejudice by an act of a court or a Tribunal, it has been held on occasions that the court or a Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order which it has made by committing an error itself and which has caused prejudice to a party. It is true that the normal rule is that the remedy of review is a creature of a statute and if the statute does not contain powers for review then the power cannot be exercised. Review proceedings of this kind are those 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. Such a remedy must be provided be the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such a case reopen the proceedings to give the party a chance to state its case". In Srimathi Lachmana alias Mubraia v. Deputy Director of Consolidation a Division Bench of this court, to which one of us (Jagdish Sahai J.) was a member, held that "every court or tribunal has inherent jurisdiction apart from statutory jurisdiction to correct any error committed by itself." In Syed Tuffuzzool Hossein Khan v. Rughoonath Pershad, it was observed as follows: " Mr. Fraser appears to have supposed a judge of that court unable to correct his own error, in sending forth, per incuriam, an invalid order which he would not have made if duly informed. To proceed, so far as the practice of his court will allow him, to recall and cancel an inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
