Advisory income-tax reference jurisdiction does not permit review or recall under civil procedure absent a narrow clerical exception.

In a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, the High Court's jurisdiction is advisory, so it has no general power to review or recall its earlier order under the Code of Civil Procedure unless a narrow clerical or analogous exception applies; no such exception was shown, so recall was not maintainable. The Court also found no inconsistency in a connected reference, because the two matters involved different assessment years and factual settings, and the earlier decision did not ermine the assessee's disclosure obligations for the year in question. No basis existed to reopen the matter, so the application failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application seeking review or recall of an earlier income-tax reference order was maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the earlier decision in the connected reference created any conflict warranting recall, on the ground that there was no failure to disclose material facts for the assessment year in question.

Issue (i): Whether an application seeking review or recall of an earlier income-tax reference order was maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The jurisdiction exercised in a reference under section 256(2) is advisory in nature. The Act does not confer any general power of review on the High Court in such proceedings. In the absence of an express statutory provision, review or recall cannot be invoked under Order 47 Rule 1 or section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except in narrowly confined situations involving clerical mistakes or analogous special circumstances, which were not present here.

Conclusion: The review or recall application was not maintainable and failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision in the connected reference created any conflict warranting recall, on the ground that there was no failure to disclose material facts for the assessment year in question.

Analysis: The two references concerned different assessment years and different factual settings. The earlier decision relating to the other assessment year did not decide the question whether the impugned deposits were taxable in the present year, nor did it determine the assessee's disclosure obligations for the present assessment proceedings. On the facts before the Court, disclosure made in the later assessment proceedings did not absolve the assessee from full and true disclosure for the relevant year.

Conclusion: No conflict or inconsistency was made out, and the application failed on this issue as well.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that no review or recall could be granted in these reference proceedings and that the prior decision did not furnish any basis for reopening the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: In a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the High Court has only advisory jurisdiction and, absent an express statutory grant, cannot exercise review powers under the Code of Civil Procedure except in exceptional clerical or analogous situations; a decision in a different assessment year does not automatically justify recall of a later reference order.

---