TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 15,000 on estimate treating it as expenses on entertainment. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Jaipur, by his order dated June 18, 1979, reduced the additions made by the Income-tax Officer on account of entertainment expenditure to Rs. 10,000 from Rs. 15,000. The assessee filed a further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and before the Tribunal, it was contended on its behalf that the expenditure in question was incurred in providing tea, cigarettes, pan, etc., to drivers, agents, customers and employees and that these expenses were customary and incidental to the business. The Tribunal held that these expenses were incurred in providing drinks, tea, coca cola, etc., to the constituents, customers and employees of the assessee and that they were incidental to the business. It was held by the Tribunal that such expenditure cannot be said to be in the nature of entertainment. On an application being made by the Commissioner of Incometax, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, by its order dated July 1, 1981, referred the following question of law to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to him, the adatias came from U. P. to effect sales of goods and he had to provide amenities to "aratias". The Income-tax Officer, "C" Ward, Jaipur, disallowed the deduction of this amount having regard to the provisions contained in section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer in this regard. He held that, in view of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Raman Dass and Sons v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 541, the Income-tax Officer was right in holding that these expenses were in the nature of entertainment expenditure which was not allowable according to the provisions of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee went in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was by way of providing hot, cold drinks, lunch, etc., to its customers which was customary in nature in the line of business carried on by the assessee and it did not constitute "entertainment expenditures. On an application being moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal, by, its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the excess expenditure allowed by the Tribunal is liable to be disallowed in view of the Second Explanation read with section 37(2A) of the Act. Learned counsel urged that this court may, accordingly, rectify or modify its orders answering the three references accordingly. The main question which arises for determination is that the references under section 256(1) having already been answered by this court in the affirmative, can this court, tinder section 151 or section 152, C. P. C., rectify, modify or review its answer even if there is an error in the answer on account of the fact that the provision contained in section 37(2A) with Explanation 2 thereto was not taken into consideration. It is clear from the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961,that the Code of Civil Procedure as such does not apply to the proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961.Section 131 of the Income-tax Act would go to show that, for a limited purpose of discovery and inspection, enforcing the attendance of any person including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath, compelling the production of books of account and other documents and issuing commissions, the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 260 of the Act on a reference made to it by the Appellate Tribunal by drawing up a statement of the case is not included amongst the "income-tax authorities" referred to in section 116 of the Act and, consequently, the High Court cannot exercise the power of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record under section 154 of the Act. The power of review is not inherent in a court or Tribunal. It is. creature of the statute. A court or Tribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by statute. The courts having general jurisdiction like civil courts have inherent power. But the courts or Tribunals of limited jurisdiction created under special statutes have no inherent power. (See Gopinath Deb v. Budhia Swain, AIR 1983 Orissa 31, 33). Section 152, C. P. C., equally has no application in the case. It is also clear that, under section 152 of the Code, only clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission can be corrected. The present is not a case where any clerical or accidental error has taken place. The references were answered by a conscious decision after referring to two earlier decisions of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate or revisional jurisdiction. Under the Income-tax Act, there is no power of review conferred on the High Court and we are not inclined to hold that in the absence of such specific conferment of such power, this court can exercise the power of review or of recalling its previous judgment purporting to exercise power under Order 47, rule 1, or section 151, CPC. We are conscious of the fact that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction in order to do justice in special circumstances, such as to rectify a mistake of clerical nature which had crept in by inadvertence or restore a case when dismissed in default on the cause being shown reasonable or even when the case was decided on merits without due notice to parties or to a party concerned on account of the mistake of the High Court office. The exercise of such power is different from those conferred under Order 47, rule 1, or under section 151, CPC. The grounds on which the present application has been moved seeking review or recalling of our order dated January 22, 1987, are not of the type on which any review can be sought invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court." The decision in L. Hirday Narain v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
