9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in recalling its order and setting it aside for fresh disposal. 2. Whether the Tribunal had the power to review its own order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Justification of Tribunal's Recall and Fresh Disposal The Tribunal initially dismissed the assessee's appeal, concluding that the firm "Mithalal Ashok Kumar" was not genuine and was merely a branch of "M/s Abhayakumar Jaswant Kumar." The Tribunal later set aside its order upon finding mistakes apparent from the record, which were pointed out in a rectification application u/s 254(2) by the assessee. The Tribunal held that it had inherent power to rectify such mistakes without exercising the power of review, thus setting aside its order for rehearing. Issue 2: Tribunal's Power to Review under Section 254(2) The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had no power to review its own order, as section 254(2) only allows for correction of mistakes, not a review. The Tribunal, however, found that it had committed mistakes by not considering certain material on record, which justified setting aside its order. The court noted that the Tribunal can rectify mistakes apparent from the record and amend its orders accordingly. The court distinguished between "point of law" and "question of law," concluding that no substantial question of law was involved in this case. The Tribunal's action was deemed a rectification, not a review, and thus within its jurisdiction. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's petition, affirming that the Tribunal was justified in rectifying its mistakes and setting aside its order for fresh disposal. The Tribunal's action did not constitute a review but a permissible rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, no reference to the High Court was warranted.
|
