Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (11) TMI 175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e record justifying rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier order dated March 13, 1987 ?" 2. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1974-75. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows : The assessee-opposite party has been assessed to Income-tax in the status of "registered firm". In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown deposits of Rs. 1,49,360 from 83 persons. It was claimed by the assessee that they were trade deposits. However, the Income-tax Officer treated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... story. We, therefore, hold that the genuineness of the credits cannot be accepted." 4. Thereafter, the assessee had moved Misc. Appln. No. 34/All/1989. By moving that application, it was pointed out that the observation made in the order of the Tribunal to the effect that the goods had been supplied to different parties, on the same day at the same place, is factually incorrect. It was further pointed out that M/s. Kishori Lal Kedarnath is a party situated at Siswa Bazar, whereas M/s. Babulal and Co. is a firm situated at Barhalganj. It was stated in the application (that) Siswa Bazar and Barhalganj are two different tehsils of district Gorakhpur and that the assessee-firm was located in district Deoria. The distance between the assessee&# .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed the address of M/s Kishori Lal Kedarnath at Siswa Bazar and of Babulal and Co. at Barhalganj. That being so it cannot be said that supplies to the said two parties were made at the same place. We, therefore, hold that the mistake which has been pointed out on behalf of the assessee is apparent from record and needs rectification." 6. We have heard Sri R. K. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 7. Sri Upadhyay, learned standing counsel, submitted that the assessee- opposite party had filed an application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated March 13, 1987, on the same grounds, which was registered as Misc. Appln. No. 100/All/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... drawn was on incorrect facts, which was rightly rectified by the Tribunal, vide its order dated June 21, 1988. According to him, it was an error apparent on the face of the record and did not admit of any debate. The plea that the Tribunal has exercised the power of review is wholly misconceived. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. From the order of the Tribunal dated March 13, 1987, reproduced hereinbefore, we find that the Tribunal had drawn an adverse inference on the basis of the supplies made by the assessee-opposite party to some of the parties and giving one or two illustrations. It had rejected the application filed under section 254(2) of the Act, vide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er conferred by the statute or inferred by implication the Tribunal which has been constituted under the Act cannot exercise any power of review and no such power can be inferred by implication nor is there any specific provision in the Act providing for review. 13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in reviewing its order in the garb of rectification proceedings as there was no error apparent on the record and it could be discovered only after a process of debate. We accordingly, answer both the questions referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.< .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates