2010 (4) TMI 896 - HC - Income Tax

Whether an application for review can be entertained when an appeal has been disposed of under section 260A of the Act. Assessee after losing in appeal preferred an application for review and at that juncture the issue of maintainability of the application was raised The judgment was passed in a miscellaneous appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act against which only an appeal can be preferred under section 261 before the apex court and there is no provision of review of the appellate order in the Income-tax Act which is a code by itself. In the context of the Income-tax Act it is a code by itself and in the absence of any provision for review against an appellate order passed under section 260A of the Act, no review can be exercised by the High Court. In appropriate cases, inherent power of the court to correct apparent mistakes is permissible to be used by the High Court and such inherent power may be invoked by this court to consider this review application. The High Court is a superior court of record and under article 215 shall have all powers of such a court of record including the power to punish contempt of itself Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court. If the decision of a superior court on a question of its jurisdiction is erroneous, it can, of course, be corrected by appeal or revision as may be permissible under the law, but until the adjudication by a superior court on such a point is set aside by adopting the appropriate course, it would not be open to be corrected by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court. The High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, the High Court has not only the power, but a duty to correct any apparent error in respect of any order passed by it. This is the plenary power of the High Court No scintilla of doubt that the High Court can entertain the application for review arising out of a judgment passed under section 260A of the Act the decisions rendered in Bihar Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simitee (supra), Bibhay Kumar Sah (supra), J. B. Associates (P) Ltd. and Bengali Singh (HUF) through Bengali Singh 2010 325 ITR 350 (Patna) 2010 (4) TMI 894 - PATNA HIGH COURT are overruled.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a review application under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of the High Court to entertain review applications.
3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to special statutes like the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Review Application under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The court examined whether an application for review can be entertained after an appeal has been disposed of under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The Division Bench referred to previous decisions, such as Bihar Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simitee v. CIT and Bib-hay Kumar Sah v. ITO, which held that an application for review is not maintainable under section 260A. The rationale was that the Income-tax Act is a self-contained code, and only an appeal under section 261 of the Act is permissible, with no provision for review.

2. Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers of the High Court to Entertain Review Applications:

The court considered the inherent powers of the High Court as a superior court of record. It referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that superior courts have inherent powers to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The court also discussed the Supreme Court's ruling in M. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, which affirmed that the High Court has a duty to correct its records and possesses plenary powers, including the power of review.

3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to Special Statutes like the Income-tax Act:

The court analyzed the applicability of the Limitation Act to special statutes, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court held that where a special statute does not expressly exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, it is necessary to examine whether and to what extent the special statute impliedly excludes their operation. The court noted that the Income-tax Act, being a self-contained code, does not provide for review, and hence, the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers to entertain a review application in the absence of an express provision.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that it has the jurisdiction and inherent powers to entertain a review application arising from a judgment passed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The previous decisions in Bihar Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simitee, Bib-hay Kumar Sah, J. B. Associates P. Ltd., and Bengali Singh (HUF) were overruled. The court clarified that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, even in the absence of an express provision for review in the Income-tax Act.

The matter was directed to be listed before the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings.