9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r registration and not for withdrawal or cancellation of registration already granted on earlier occasion. Since the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of Delhi Bench and Indore Bench of Tribunal is directly applicable in the present case, we hold, respectfully following the same, that the learned CIT was not empowered to pass the impugned order withdrawing registration already granted to the assessee-trust u/s 12A and such order being invalid having passed without jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. Keeping in view our decision rendered hereinabove on ground Nos. 1 and 2 quashing the impugned order passed by the learned CIT, we do not deem it necessary to consider and decide the other grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal which have been rendered merely of academic nature. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter from the concerned AO and in such report filed before the learned CIT, the concerned AO submitted that the photocopies of 947 pages as desired by the assessee-trust have already supplied on 9th July, 2003. He also stated in the said report that despite giving specific and sufficient opportunity to the assessee-trust for inspection of the relevant documents on 17th July, 2003, nobody attended on behalf of the assessee-trust for such inspection. From the submissions made by the AO in his report, the learned CIT noticed that the assessee-trust is purposely not attending the office of the AO for inspection of the relevant documents and keeping in view the fact that copies of 947 papers/documents have already been obtained by the assessee, he held that the assessee-trust could reasonably be treated as having provided full inspection and proper opportunity for inspection of the relevant record by the AO. He also held that the assessee-trust is purposely trying to keep the matter pending and is not complying with the requirements and accordingly proceeded to cancel the registration granted to the assessee-trust under s. 12A with retrospective effect from 15th Oct., 2001, holding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling or withdrawing the registration already granted. It is observed that similar issue arose for consideration before the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kailashchand Mission Trust vs. Asstt. CIT (2004) 83 TTJ (Del) 418 : (2004) 88 ITD 125 (Del) and while considering the first question in this context as to whether the CIT can review its earlier order passed under s. 12A, the Tribunal held that the CIT could not exercise the power of review inasmuch as neither he had any such power under the Act nor he had any inherent powers of review, after discussing the various judicial pronouncements in this context in para Nos. 6 and 7 of its order as follows: "6. Contentions of the rival parties have been considered carefully in the light of case law referred to. The first question to be considered is whether the CIT can review its earlier order? Normal rule is that the remedy by way of review is a creature of statute and if the statute does not contain such powers then no authority under the Act can review his own order. As a result thereof, no authority can be said to have an inherent right of review. Similar is the position with the right of appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is well-settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegatee could not have reviewed its order.' In our view, the above judgment concludes the issue. It is on the basis of this principle, it has been repeatedly held by the Courts that neither the Tribunal under s. 254(2) nor any other income-tax authority under s. 154 can review its earlier order. It is not necessary to cite various judgments on this issue and it would be sufficient to cite the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Bhawani Prasad Girdhari Lal & Co., wherein it has been held that an ITO under s. 154 can only rectify the mistake but cannot review his order. In view of these binding judgments, it is held that CIT could not exercise the power of review inasmuch as neither he had any such power under the Act nor he had any inherent powers of review." 4. Thereafter the Tribunal proceeded to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and excise statute list some articles separately and some articles are grouped together. When they are grouped together, each word in the entry draws colour from the other words therein. This is the principle of noscitur a sociis.' In this case, the Court was required to consider as to whether Dhoop and Agarbati could be included within the meaning of the word 'perfumery' associated with other words 'cosmetics and toilet goods'. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, it was held that the word 'perfumery' was used in restricted sense and would include only those items which are used as cosmetics and toilet goods, upon the person and consequently, would not include Dhoop and Agarbati. 9. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the provisions of s. 21 of GCA, we are of the view that the word 'orders' would not include judicial or quasi-judicial orders. This word is associated with the words 'notification', rules and bye-laws'. So, the word 'order' should be construed in the context in which the associated words are used. Associated words are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Therefore, the word 'orders' contemplated in this section would be restricted to such orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
