9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Tribunal's order dated January 3, 1997. 2. Non-disposal of the application under rule 29. 3. Jurisdictional error and procedural irregularity. 4. Availability of alternative remedy under section 256(1). Summary: 1. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Dated January 3, 1997: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on January 3, 1997, without addressing the pending applications under rule 29 for admitting additional evidence. The petitioners argued that this oversight amounted to a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's order was challenged on grounds of violating principles of natural justice and not judicially disposing of the appeals. 2. Non-Disposal of the Application Under Rule 29: The Tribunal had earlier ordered on October 23, 1996, that the application under rule 29 would be disposed of first. However, this application was not addressed in the final order. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal's failure to dispose of the application under rule 29 before deciding the appeals on merits constituted a significant procedural irregularity. 3. Jurisdictional Error and Procedural Irregularity: The petitioners claimed that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by not recalling its order dated January 3, 1997, and by rejecting the applications dated February 5, 1997, and April 2, 1997. The Tribunal, however, held that the non-disposal of the application under rule 29 did not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record" under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the petitioners had acquiesced in the appeal being decided on merits without pressing the application under rule 29. 4. Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Section 256(1): The High Court held that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, which they had already invoked. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of this alternative remedy. The court noted that the petitioners were attempting to pursue remedies under both section 256 of the Act and article 226/227 of the Constitution simultaneously, which was not permissible. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act. The court also noted that the petitioners had acquiesced in the appeal being decided on merits without pressing the application under rule 29, and thus, the Tribunal's order did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
|
