1979 (1) TMI 97 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Review Application: Whether an application for review of a judgment in a reference under the Income Tax Act is maintainable.
2. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court: Whether the High Court has the inherent power to review its own decisions in the absence of specific statutory provisions.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of Review Application:
The petitioner sought a review of the judgment in I.T.R. No. 84 of 1974, which had been decided in favor of the department and against the assessee. The primary issue was whether the application for review under O. 47, r. 1 and s. 151, C.P.C., read with s. 260 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was maintainable. The court concluded that the High Court, when acting under s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961, exercises a special jurisdiction that is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the application for review was not maintainable.

2. Jurisdiction and Powers of the High Court:
The court examined whether it had the inherent power to review its decisions in the absence of specific statutory provisions. The court referred to several precedents, including the Privy Council decision in CIT v. Tehri-Garhwal State [1934] 2 ITR 1, which held that the judgment of the High Court in a reference under the I.T. Act is binding between the parties and can only be corrected by an appeal, not by review. The court also discussed the decision of the Full Bench in K. Ahamad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 29, which emphasized that the High Court does not have the power to review its decisions in the context of references under the I.T. Act unless specifically conferred by statute.

The court concluded that the High Court's jurisdiction in a reference under the I.T. Act is advisory or consultative, and the decision rendered becomes binding as between the parties. The court cannot exercise the power of review in such matters, as it is not conferred by the I.T. Act. Consequently, the petition for review was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The petition for review was dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. The High Court does not have the inherent power to review its decisions in the context of references under the I.T. Act unless specifically conferred by statute.