1984 (8) TMI 112 - AT - Wealth-tax

Tribunal rejects High Court referral on jurisdiction to recall order under Wealth-tax Act

The Tribunal declined to refer questions to the High Court regarding its jurisdiction to recall its order under the Wealth-tax Act. Despite arguments from ... - Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its own order.2. Justification of the Tribunal in recalling its order in contravention of statutory provisions.3. Whether the Tribunal should have rectified mistakes instead of recalling the order.Analysis:1. The Central Wealth Tax (CWT) filed applications under s. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, seeking the Tribunal to refer questions to the High Court regarding the Tribunal's powers to recall its order. The Department argued that these were questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. However, the assessee's counsel contended that the questions framed did not arise from the Tribunal's order, emphasizing they were factual, not legal issues.2. The case involved penalties imposed by the WTO for delayed filing of wealth tax returns. The AAC canceled the penalties, prompting the Department to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the AAC for fresh disposal.3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out mistakes in the Tribunal's order and arguing that certain aspects were not considered. The Tribunal, after considering the application, recalled its order for fresh hearing of the appeals. The CWT then sought references on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and justification for recalling the order.4. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the order and should have rectified any mistakes instead. They cited a case from the Orissa High Court to support their position. However, the Tribunal found that the questions raised were not referable as they did not arise from its order.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to draw up a statement of the case for reference under s. 27(1), rejecting the reference applications for all three years. The decision was based on the view that the questions posed were not questions of law requiring reference to the High Court.