High Court asserts jurisdiction for review under Income-tax Act, overruling past decisions. Emphasizes power to correct errors.

The High Court held that it has jurisdiction and inherent powers to entertain a review application under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. Previous decisions stating otherwise were overruled. The court emphasized its authority to correct errors on the record, even without a specific provision for review in the Act. The case was remitted to the appropriate Division Bench for further action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a review application under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of the High Court to entertain review applications.
3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to special statutes like the Income-tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Review Application under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The court examined whether an application for review can be entertained after an appeal has been disposed of under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The Division Bench referred to previous decisions, such as Bihar Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simitee v. CIT and Bib-hay Kumar Sah v. ITO, which held that an application for review is not maintainable under section 260A. The rationale was that the Income-tax Act is a self-contained code, and only an appeal under section 261 of the Act is permissible, with no provision for review.

2. Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers of the High Court to Entertain Review Applications:

The court considered the inherent powers of the High Court as a superior court of record. It referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra and M. V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that superior courts have inherent powers to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The court also discussed the Supreme Court's ruling in M. M. Thomas v. State of Kerala, which affirmed that the High Court has a duty to correct its records and possesses plenary powers, including the power of review.

3. Applicability of the Limitation Act to Special Statutes like the Income-tax Act:

The court analyzed the applicability of the Limitation Act to special statutes, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court held that where a special statute does not expressly exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, it is necessary to examine whether and to what extent the special statute impliedly excludes their operation. The court noted that the Income-tax Act, being a self-contained code, does not provide for review, and hence, the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers to entertain a review application in the absence of an express provision.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that it has the jurisdiction and inherent powers to entertain a review application arising from a judgment passed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The previous decisions in Bihar Rajya Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simitee, Bib-hay Kumar Sah, J. B. Associates P. Ltd., and Bengali Singh (HUF) were overruled. The court clarified that the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, even in the absence of an express provision for review in the Income-tax Act.

The matter was directed to be listed before the appropriate Division Bench for further proceedings.

---