9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operties, annexed to the aforesaid order of the Competent Authority. The petitioner by means of this application under section 20 of the Act seeks rectification of this part of the Tribunal's order dated February 16, 1993, on the plea that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as there was ample evidence on record to show that the source of acquisition of the aforesaid three plots was from lawful source, duly explained before the income-tax authorities, and to that extent the order of the Tribunal was erroneous. So far as the merits of the present petition are concerned, we have carefully gone through the written arguments sent by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri L. N. Rastogi, Senior Advocate, Patna, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of the petitioner, or was part of the return filed by the petitioner himself as an "individual" or as "karta" of the Hindu undivided family. The fact, however, remains that there is a clear finding of the Competent Authority, as well as of the Appellate Tribunal, that neither the wife nor the sons, including even the adult son of the petitioner, had any independent income and that all sources of acquisition of properties emanated from the petitioner. Be that as it may, the position is that the Appellate Tribunal has taken a view of the matter, in respect of the three plots in question and the bare fact that on the basis of the same material a different view, as contended by the petitioner, had been take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file under section 20 of the Act. We are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal has no such jurisdiction to pass an order afresh either on the basis of the existing evidence or by allowing additional evidence. Section 20 of the Act is restricted to rectifying any mistake apparent on the record. To decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner is not rectification of any mistake apparent on the record in terms of section 20 of the Act. " We fully subscribe to this view. The question is otherwise also not res integra. The Supreme Court, as far back as in a case decided on September 25, 1959 - Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 - held that ( at page 141 ) : "An error which has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, Shri Brij Kishore Tiwari. We direct rectification to this limited extent that the observation in paragraph 7 of the Tribunal's order that all the three plots were purchased in the name of the "appellant's sons" should read as detailed in the schedule annexed to the Competent Authority's order. We may mention that this petition under section 20 of the Act is dated April 6, 1993, and received in this office on April 15, 1993, i.e., within about two months of the passing of the Tribunal's order, but somehow has not been disposed of partly for the reason that the Bench of the Tribunal could not be constituted because the Chairman had retired, and thereafter the Member. After this application could be listed for hearing, the petitioner's cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
