9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Tribunal to rehear a matter due to non-consideration of a material ground. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the judgment of a single judge regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rehear a matter where a material ground was not considered. The assessee, in this case, was assessed for income tax and excess profits tax for specific accounting periods. The issue arose when the Tribunal did not address the adjustment of standard profits, a crucial aspect raised by the assessee in the appeals. The Tribunal disposed of the appeals without considering this significant ground, leading to the filing of review applications by the assessee. The main question revolved around whether the Tribunal had the inherent jurisdiction to rectify the error made by not considering a vital ground and subsequently rehear the matter to ensure justice between the parties. The judgment delved into the relevant provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act, particularly sections 19 and 21, to determine the scope of the Tribunal's powers in such situations. The judgment analyzed the arguments presented by the income tax department's representative, focusing on the applicability of section 35 of Act 11 of 1922 to the proceedings under the Excess Profits Tax Act. It was established that the omission of section 35 in section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act indicated a deliberate choice by the legislature, thereby concluding that section 35 did not apply to the review applications initiated by the assessee. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the contention that a Tribunal lacks inherent power to rectify errors to the prejudice of a party. By citing various legal precedents, including Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab and Shri Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the judgment established that courts and Tribunals possess inherent jurisdiction to rectify their mistakes causing prejudice to a party, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision of the single judge, S. C. Manchanda, affirming that the Tribunal indeed had the inherent jurisdiction to rectify the error made in not considering the crucial ground raised by the assessee. The appeal challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction was dismissed, emphasizing the court's duty to correct its own errors to prevent injustice to the parties involved.
|
