9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed by order dated 12.7.1977 holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record and points raised were of argumentative nature - After 9 months, second application under Section 254 (2) was made which was almost similar to the application earlier made and dismissed on 12.7.1977. The said application was accepted, vide order dated 31.3.1979 and reversing the view earlier taken by the Tribunal, addition made by the Assistant Appellate Commissioner was upheld. - held that - the Tribunal could not have readjudicated the matter under Section 254 (2). - There is no express power of review conferred on the Tribunal - Tribunal was not justified in recalling its previous finding restoring the addition, more so when an application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unaccounted stock pledged with the bank and not accounted for in the books of account, as undiclosed income. The addition was partly upheld by the CIT (A). The Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.3.1976, restored the addition. 3. The assessee filed an application under Section 254 (2) for rectification of order dated 18.3.1976. The said application was dismissed by order dated 12.7.1977 holding that there was no mistake apparent on the record and points raised were of argumentative nature. 4. After 9 months, second application under Section 254 (2) was made which was almost similar to the application earlier made and dismissed on 12.7.1977. The said application was accepted, vide order dated 31.3.1979 and reversing the view earlier taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate the issues. Reliance has been placed on T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay v. Volkart Brothers and others (1971) 82 ITR 50, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ramesh E lectric and Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and others (1997) 228 ITR 463, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kamal Bhai Ismailji (2007) 288 ITR 297 (All), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and other (2007) 293 ITR 118 (Delhi), Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saurasthtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 and Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 439. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee, however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l cannot be disturbed by a different bench beyond the statutory power available to it. The Tribunal has referred to principle of inherent power and incidental power and also the principle that act of Court cannot prejudice anyone. Scope of the principle "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" i.e. nobody will be prejudiced by act of court, extends to correcting an error from an accidental slip or omission. Such power is available under section 254 (2) of the Act, which is akin to Section 152 CPC. In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Coop. Society Ltd.,(2007) 13 SCC 421, after referring to earlier judgments, the scope of such power was considered and it was observed that the said power was neither akin to power of review nor could clothe the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
