Inherent jurisdiction to correct tribunal error survives where a material ground was omitted and review is otherwise unavailable.

Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not extend to review proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal under the Excess Profits Tax Act because Section 21 incorporated only specified provisions and excluded that remedy. Although statutory review was unavailable, the Tribunal could exercise inherent jurisdiction to correct its own omission where it had failed to decide a material ground of appeal and that error had prejudiced a party. The order holding that the Tribunal could reopen the matter to prevent injustice was therefore upheld, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied to review proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal under the Excess Profits Tax Act; (ii) Whether the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to rectify an error committed by itself in omitting to decide a material ground of appeal.

Issue (i): Whether Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied to review proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal under the Excess Profits Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act incorporated only specified provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and Section 35 was not among them. The appellate power conferred by Section 19(2) related only to disposal of the appeal and could not extend to a post-appeal review or rectification proceeding. The omission of Section 35 from the incorporated provisions was therefore deliberate.

Conclusion: Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 did not apply to the review applications filed before the Tribunal under the Excess Profits Tax Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to rectify an error committed by itself in omitting to decide a material ground of appeal.

Analysis: A statutory remedy of review is distinct from the inherent power of a court or tribunal to correct its own mistake where the mistake has prejudiced a party and the party is not at fault. The Tribunal had ignored a substantial ground relating to standard profits, and the resulting error could be corrected to prevent injustice. The power to undo such an error was treated as inherent jurisdiction rather than statutory review.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to reopen the matter and correct the error caused by its own omission.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order allowing the writ petition and setting aside the Tribunal's dismissal of the review applications was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory review provision is not applicable, a court or tribunal may nevertheless exercise inherent jurisdiction to correct its own mistake when its own error has caused prejudice and the correction is necessary to prevent injustice.

---