| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 74 2000 SLD 74 2000 PTD 905 (1998) 232 ITR 395 |
Delhi High Court
Civil Writs Nos. 2796 to 2799 of 1997, decision dated:5-11-1997
R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, JJ
G. C. Sharma with Anoop Sharma for Petitioners. M. S. Syali, Sanjeev Khanna with Ms. Prem Lata. Bansal for
Respondents.
Civil Writs Nos. 2796 to 2799 of 1997, decision dated:5-11-1997
R. C. LAHOTI AND, J. K. MEHRA, JJ
G. C. Sharma with Anoop Sharma for Petitioners. M. S. Syali, Sanjeev Khanna with Ms. Prem Lata. Bansal for
Respondents.
Ms. DEEKSHA SURI and 3 othersvsIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 254,226,254(2)
(a) Income-tax--- ----Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Powers of Tribunal---Review--- Rectification of mistakes---Tribunal cannot review its order---Tribunal can rectify mistakes in its order which are patent and obvious ---Assessee filing application to adduce additional evidence but arguing appeal on merits without referring to its application---Tribunal dismissing appeal---Application for review of order on the ground that failure to deal with application for admission of additional evidence was a jurisdictional error---Tribunal could not review its order---Controversy on the question whether there was any error at all and whether error was jurisdictional or procedural--Tribunal could not rectify its order---Writ petition against order by one of petitioners dismissed by High Court and Supreme Court on the ground that assessee had alternate remedy---Decision was binding on other petitioners---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254---Constitution of India, Art. 226. (b) Income-tax--- ----General principles---Similar matters should receive similar treatment--¬Statement recorded by Court or Tribunal is presumed to be correct. (c) Writ--- ----Alternate remedy available---Writ will not normally issue---Constitution of India, Art. 226. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a creature of the statute. It has not been vested with the review jurisdiction by the statute creating it. The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own s or orders. The grounds on which the Courts may open or vacate their s are generally matters which render the void or which are specified in the statutes authorising such actions. A will not be opened or vacated on grounds which could have been pleaded in the original action. A motion to vacate will not be entered when the proper remedy is by some other proceeding, such as by appeal. The right to vacation of a may be lost by waiver or estoppel. Where a party injured acquiesces in the rendition of the or submits to it, waiver or estoppel results. The language of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is clear. The foundation for exercising the jurisdiction is "with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record" and the object is…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492