https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754215 A High Court, as a court of record, was treated as having inherent power to review its own order under Article 215 of the Constitution and section 260-A(7) of the Income-tax Act, so the review application was maintainable in principle. However, the applicant failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the review attempt was only a re-argument of the appeal, while the earlier decision had already turned on the limited scope of section 260-A, the failure to discharge the burden concerning donations, the absence of authentic donor records, and the findings of the fact-finding authorities. Review was therefore not used as a substitute for a fresh hearing, and the earlier appellate order remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754215 A High Court, as a court of record, was treated as having inherent power to review its own order under Article 215 of the Constitution and section 260-A(7) of the Income-tax Act, so the review application was maintainable in principle. However, the applicant failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the review attempt was only a re-argument of the appeal, while the earlier decision had already turned on the limited scope of section 260-A, the failure to discharge the burden concerning donations, the absence of authentic donor records, and the findings of the fact-finding authorities. Review was therefore not used as a substitute for a fresh hearing, and the earlier appellate order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754215