TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), has recalled its order dated January 25, 1994, rejecting the reference application filed by the Revenue and has directed the listing of the said reference application for hearing. The Tribunal has observed that the reference application filed by the Revenue was wrongly rejected by following a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on April 3, 1991, which in fact had already been withdrawn on June 26, 1992. Thus, it felt that this was a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified by exercising, the inherent powers vested in the Tribunal. In the reply affidavit filed by the Assessing Officer the petition is resisted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Delhi and, therefore, it can be safely said that the part of cause of action, within the meaning of article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus, this court is competent to entertain the petition. The ratio of the aforenoted decisions, relied upon by learned counsel for the Revenue, which are otherwise distinguishable on the facts, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. The decision in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta [1978] 113 ITR 817 (Delhi), followed in the subsequent decisions of this court, was rendered in a case where the court was dealing with the issue as to which court will be competent to give opinion on a reference under section 256(2) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer ;..." The aforenoted provisions of law are clear and unambiguous. A bare reading whereof leaves no doubt in our mind that the Tribunal is competent to rectify a mistake apparent from the record and amend any order which has been passed under sub-section (1). Admittedly, by the impugned order, the Tribunal has sought to rectify the order passed by it under section 256(1) of the Act and not an order passed under section 254(1). We have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal is not clothed with an inherent power to rectify/recall an order passed under section 256(1) of the Act by taking recourse to section 254(2) of the Act and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
