TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally competent to recall its order once again and to give a finding contrary to the finding given in the earlier order of recall on the same facts and evidence ? " Brief facts giving rise to this reference are that the Income-tax Officer noticed that the assessee was having credit balance of Rs. 3,94,045 on the first day of the accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration with the firm, Ratilal Manekji, Burhanpur. It was noticed that the assessee had not disclosed any interest income from the above credit balance. It was explained by the assessee as to why the income of interest was not shown. It was submitted that the income has actually not accrued and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal reversed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the finding of the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter an application under section 254(2) of the Act for rectification was moved before the Tribunal which was rejected on August 16, 1982, on the ground that there was no error and all the material was taken into consideration and, therefore, there is no occasion to recall the earlier order dated February 12, 1982. The Tribunal found that there was no error in the order dated February 12, 1982 and rejected the application for rectification, vide order dated August 16, 1982. Thereafter, the second application for rectification was moved on February 2, 1983, before the Tribunal and this application was allowed by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, a rectification application was moved stating that certain material facts, i.e, letters, hundis, etc., were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated August 16, 1982, rejected this application for rectification and observed that all the material which was there on record was considered. Thereafter a second application was moved and in that, the Tribunal observed that in the original order passed by the Tribunal dated February 12, 1982, full material was not considered. This is absolutely an erroneous approach on the part of the Tribunal. In fact, all the material was the subject-matter of decision before the Income-tax Officer and the letter which the assessee had written ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the Appellate Tribunal and recorded their findings. Such findings of fact cannot be rectified in a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act. More so, in the present case, the first rectification application was rejected. Notwithstanding that, a second application was entertained and this act of the Tribunal, in our opinion, was absolutely not warranted and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere, under the garb of rectification, a decision on the merits could not be given. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated December 23, 1983, was beyond the scope of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, we answer both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
