9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Justification of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in recalling its order under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The writ application before the High Court of Orissa raised the issue of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, was justified in recalling its order dated April 12, 1989, in W. T. A. No. 28/CTK of 1988 under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The appeal filed by the assessee challenged the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer for a property in Bhubaneshwar and Dhenkanal. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, prompting the assessee to file an application under section 35(1)(e) alleging that the order was contrary to the indication that the matter would be remanded. The Department contended that there was no mistake apparent from the record necessitating the recall of the order. The counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal's failure to consider relevant materials constituted a mistake that could be rectified. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order was non-reasoned, did not consider the applicability of section 35(1)(e), and lacked any indication of a mistake apparent from the record. The Court emphasized that section 35 allows rectification of mistakes, not review or revision, and such mistakes must be manifest and evident from the records. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for rehearing to determine if the conditions for exercising power under section 35(1)(e) were met. The judgment highlighted the importance of a clear and reasoned consideration of the legal provisions involved in recalling an order under section 35(1)(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It emphasized that the scope of rectification under this section is limited to correcting manifest mistakes apparent from the records, not for review or revision purposes. The Court criticized the Tribunal's non-reasoned order and lack of analysis regarding the applicability of section 35(1)(e). The judgment serves as a reminder of the strict criteria for invoking such provisions and the necessity for clear justification based on the record. The decision also underscores the significance of providing detailed reasons for judicial decisions to ensure transparency and accountability in the legal process.
|
