Review jurisdiction under income-tax appeals is not implied where the statute does not expressly confer substantive review power.

A review petition against an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act was held not maintainable because substantive review is not an inherent appellate power and must be expressly conferred by statute. Although section 260A(7) applies CPC provisions relating to appeals to the High Court, appeals and review remain distinct remedies, and that procedural cross-reference does not create review jurisdiction. Only procedural correction ex debito justitiae may be available to remedy a palpable procedural error. As the Act contained no substantive review power, the petition failed and the request for condonation of delay did not arise for consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review petition filed in respect of an appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is maintainable when the statute does not specifically confer a power of substantive review.

Analysis: Section 260A(7) makes applicable the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to appeals to the High Court, but the Code treats appeals and review as distinct remedies. The settled position is that substantive review is not an inherent power and must be expressly conferred by statute, while only procedural review may be exercised ex debito justitiae to correct a palpable procedural error. As the Income-tax Act does not confer a substantive power of review, the appellate provision cannot be read as including review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable and the request to condone delay did not survive for consideration.

---