High Court sets aside Tribunal's order, emphasizes procedural diligence, grants relief under section 254(2), prevents injustice under Article 227.

The High Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the miscellaneous applications for reconsideration. The Court emphasized the importance of conscientious procedure in affirming admissions and found the Tribunal's decision resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court addressed technical objections raised by the Department, granting relief under section 254(2) and exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to prevent potential injustice. The judgment concluded by directing the Tribunal to record findings on the alleged admission while leaving other points open for further legal recourse, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the rejection of miscellaneous applications made by the assessee/petitioner under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically related to an alleged admission made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the installation of EDP machines.

Details of the Judgment:

Alleged Admission Issue:
The Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous applications based on the alleged admission by the petitioner's counsel regarding the installation of EDP machines. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for overlooking crucial evidence, including the uncontroverted statement in the affidavit by the petitioner's counsel. The High Court emphasized the importance of a conscientious procedure in affirming such admissions, highlighting that a concession takes away valuable rights and must not be decided perfunctorily. The Court found the Tribunal's approach resulted in a miscarriage of justice for the petitioner.

Legal Technical Objections:
The High Court addressed two technical objections raised by the Department. Firstly, it dismissed the argument that the petitioner was not entitled to relief under section 254(2) due to the alleged error not being apparent on the face of the records. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that quoting a wrong section should not deprive a party of deserved relief. Secondly, the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief under Article 227 was refuted, highlighting the supervisory jurisdiction to prevent grave miscarriages of justice. The Court found the situation in the present case warranted intervention to prevent potential injustice.

Final Decision:
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the miscellaneous applications for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to record findings on the alleged admission while keeping all other points open for further legal recourse. The judgment concluded with no order as to costs, and the concurring opinion of Justice B. M. Mitra was noted.

---