9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nch of this court, on July 6, 1976, returned the reference made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, as unanswered. The assessee filed an application for invoking its inherent power to recall its order, dated July 6, 1976, passed by the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1977. Mr.Ladlilal Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee, frankly conceded before the court that in view of the decision in Roop Narain Ramchandra (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 181 (All), the I.T. Act does not confer any power on the High Court to recall an order returning a reference unanswered. Section, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") did not apply to a reference petition as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel further urged that Roop Narain Ramchandra (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 181 (All) has been specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in the above-noted case and as such this court in exercise of its inherent powers could review its order, dated January 10, 1977. He has also filed an application under s.5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning delay in filing the application for review, on the ground that the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, came to the notice of the learned counsel on March 7, 1977, and he submitted the present application on March 8, 1977. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner, has urged that the application dated March 8, 1977, was defective and the defects were removed on Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion. I find no mistake apparent on the face of the record in the above noted order. A review is not the same thing as an order substitute for an appeal. The two proceedings differ in many particulars : (i) The primary intention of a review is the reconsideration of the subject-matter by the same Bench while an appeal is a rehearing by another Tribunal. (ii) The point which may be a good ground for an appeal may not be a good ground for an application for review. Thus, an erroneous view of the evidence is no ground for review though it may be a good ground for an appeal. (iii) A review does not, of necessity, reopen the questions already decided between the parties. The matter in issue is only reopened when the application for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
