2009 (12) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I. T. A. No. 64 of 2006 and I. T. A. No. 52 of 2006 were filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, against a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal pertaining to the same assessee with regard to the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1999-2000.   3. Noticing the question of law which had been formulated at the time of admission, and on a perusal of the record, and after taking into cons-ideration the various arguments raised by the learned senior counsel for the parties, this court had allowed the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the order of the Tribunal was set aside.   4. It is not a matter of any dispute that against the order dated May 11, 2007, passed by the Division Bench, special l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or counsel for the applicant-assessee, we are satisfied that in fact the income-tax appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax having been decided by the Division Bench, through a detailed and reasoned order, and there being no power of review conferred upon the High Court under the Income-tax Act, the present review applications filed by the assessee are not even maintainable. It is well settled that the power of appeal and a power of review are statutory powers and can only be conferred by a particular statute, if so provided specifically.   9. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power and it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ries with it statutory limitations under the statute, unlike the extraordinary powers which are enjoyed by this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.   12. Since concededly, there is no specific provision providing a power of review to this court, we find that the prayer made in the present applica-tions, seeking review of the earlier order dated May 11, 2007, is wholly misconceived.   13. We have also perused the judgment in Shrinath Buliyan Refinery case [2002] 255 ITR 215 (MP), on which reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the assessee. We find that the question before the Divi-sion Bench in that case was as to whether when an order had been passed by the High Court, dismissing the appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X