TMI Blog1973 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had filed an appeal against the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer for the year 1968-69 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Jamshedpur, who by his order dated 8th June, 1971, found that the net receipt shown by the petitioner was Rs. 4,32,477.82 and the gross receipt was Rs. 7,12,379.95 and in the opinion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner there was no justification for the Income-tax Officer to make estimate on the gross receipt. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the concluding portion of the said order, by mistake, mentioned net receipt of Rs. 4,34,955, instead of gross receipt of Rs. 7,12,379.95. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner he purported to rectify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B. P. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the ground for rejecting the application for stay by the Tribunal was erroneous and as such there is an error apparent on the face of the said order inasmuch as the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the application for stay on the ground that it did not possess any such power. Learned counsel has urged that a court of appeal has incidental power by way of granting an interim relief during the pendency of an appeal although such power might not have been conferred under some statute and in this connection he has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Mohammed Kunhi. Their Lordships, while considering the power of the Income-tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant stay during the pendency of the appeal beiore it and, as such, there was no error apparent on the face of the said order calling for an interference by the extraordinary power of the court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the merits of the appeal which is pending disposal before the Tribunal. In this writ application only a limited question has been raised as to whether the Tribunal should have heard the application for stay on merits or not and as such we are not called upon to make any observation on the merits of the appeal which is yet to be decided by the Tribunal. In my opinion the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous that it has no such power. If the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
