Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether miscellaneous cases filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code were maintainable to reopen or secure further directions in income-tax reference proceedings that had already attained finality.
Analysis: The High Court held that the reference jurisdiction under section 256 of the Income-tax Act is a special and limited advisory jurisdiction. In such jurisdiction, the High Court has only incidental or ancillary powers necessary to deal with the reference, but it does not possess a general inherent power under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reopen a judgment long after it has become final. The earlier reference decision, the consequential order of the Tribunal, and the remand report had all attained finality, and the factual basis for any further effective adjudication had also disappeared because cross-examination of the witnesses was no longer possible. The matters therefore could not be revived through miscellaneous applications.
Conclusion: The miscellaneous cases were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended with rejection of the attempt to reopen concluded reference proceedings, leaving the prior final orders undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In income-tax reference jurisdiction, the High Court cannot invoke section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to reopen concluded proceedings or revisit final orders, except for incidental or ancillary powers strictly necessary to dispose of the reference.