9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting year of the said business, the adoptive mother of Durga Prasad and Durga Prasad formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange. Subsequently, a deed of partnership was executed on January 27, 1959, in respect of the said firm and the bank account of the said proprietary concern of M/s. Shew Paper Exchange was converted into a partnership account with effect from January 28, 1959. The said firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms on April 18, 1959, and an application was made to the Income-tax Officer for registration of the said firm. The Income-tax Officer, " C " Ward, Dist. V(I), Calcutta, assessed the total income of the said firm as an unregistered firm by an order dated January 8, 1965. By another order of the same date respondent No. 1 refused to register the petitioner-firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The respondent No. 1 rejected the contention that Smt. Gomti Devi was a partner of the firm and held that she was a mere name-lender. For the assessment year 1961-62, respondent No. 1 refused again to register the said firm under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. For the aforesaid assessment years 1960-61 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income tax Appellate Tribunal praying for rectification of the order passed in the said appeal as, otherwise, according to the petitioner, gross miscarriage of justice would be perpetrated and continued against the petitioner. In the said application the petitioner contended, inter alia, that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal recorded certain findings of facts in their order dated September 5, 1969, which were wrong on the face of it because certain relevant materials were not considered by the Tribunal before making that order. In the said application the petitioner sought for rectification of the following findings: A. That Shew Paper Exchange was originally a proprietary concern of Durga Prasad Nathani, the account of the said individual was closed on 10th November, 1958. B. The certificate of registration granted by the Commercial Tax Officer was originally in the name of Sri Durga Prasad Nathani and the certificate was changed in favour of Smt. Gomti Devi on June 19, 1962. C. The bank as well as the principal of the petitioner as whose agent the petitioner has been carrying on business had not been intimated about the formation of the firm until as stated hereafter. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the Tribunal as an appellate authority was empowered to exercise all such ancillary and incidental powers which were necessary for the effective disposal of the appeal. The power of review is such an ancillary and incidental power and is inherent in the appellate power of the Tribunal. In support of this contention Dr. Pal relied on the case of Income-tax Officer v. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi , a decision of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Tribunal has not been conferred express power of stay of realisation of dues of the assessee. The Supreme Court held in the aforesaid case that, although the power of stay of recovery of tax or penalty has not been conferred expressly upon the Tribunal, the Tribunal has such power as an ancillary or incidental power necessary for the effective disposal of the appeal. The Supreme Court observed : " The right of appeal is a substantive right and the questions of fact and law are at large and are open to review by the Appellate Tribunal. Indeed, the Tribunal has been given very wide powers under section 254(1), for it may pass such orders as it thinks fit after giving full hearing to both the parties to the appeal. If the Income-tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty in proper cases to make such orders for staying proceedings as will prevent the appeal if successful from being rendered nugatory. " Dr. Pal next relied on the case of Income-tax Officer v. S. B. Singar Singh & Sons, a decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, wherein it was held that: " Even when express-power to review its orders is not conferred by a statute, a court or a Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong committed by itself ......" The decision in the said case centres round the question as to whether a Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong that it had inadvertently done to the assessee by not considering a very material ground and for that reason rehearing the matter and do justice between the parties. That proposition is a corollary of a broader principle, viz., that no one should suffer by an act inadvertently or mistakenly done by the court or Tribunal. A Tribunal or a court has certainly the inherent jurisdiction of correcting a mistake or error inadvertently committed by it. Dr. Pal relied on the passage appearing at page 650 of the said report which reads as follows : " We now come to consider the second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
