TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (2) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation for the delay nor was any application filed for condonation of delay. Reference applications were accordingly rejected as barred by limitation. 2. The revenue has filed application requesting for recalling the order dated20th October, 1992on the ground that the reference applications filed by the revenue were not barred by limitation as the order of the Tribunal had been served on the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax who had forwarded the same to the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax. Whereas the date of service of the order upon the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was26th March, 1992the date of service upon the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax was20th April, 1992. Reference has been made to the decision of the Delhi High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven our careful consideration to the rival contentions. As per reference applications filed by the revenue the date of service of the order of the Tribunal in Col. No. 2 has been indicated as20th April, 1992. The Registry of the Tribunal had taken the date of service of the order of the Tribunal as26-3-1992. It is on this basis that the delay of 24 days was computed by the Registry. Notice admittedly had gone to the Department for explaining the delay in filing of the reference applications. No explanation had been furnished by the revenue nor was any application filed for condonation of the delay. However, as per the facts available with us today it becomes abundantly clear that the Registry was wrong in presuming the date of service of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... neither an order under section 254(1) nor was it an order under section 256(1), may have to be considered. Admittedly the order passed by the Tribunal was not an order under section 254(1). Therefore, provisions of section 254(2) are inapplicable in this case. To this extent the contention raised on behalf of the assessee is correct. However, the order passed by the Tribunal in refusing to entertain the application filed by the revenue under section 256(1) is an order under section 256. As per the scheme of the Act there are two stages in an appeal before the Tribunal as well as in the case of reference applications. One stage is that of admission of an appeal or reference application. The other stage is disposal of the appeal or reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 66(1). The assessee filed an application under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 seeking direction from the Hon'ble High Court to the Tribunal for drawing the statement of the case. The Hon'ble High Court held that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay in filing of the reference applications under section 66(1) and that the High Court had also no power to issue a direction under section 66(2) of the 1922 Act, to the Tribunal for drawing the statement of the case. 8. Now another question that arises in this case is as to whether the Tribunal has the power to rectify any mistake in an order under section 256 - Section 254(2) admittedly being applicable only in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uses prejudice to a party for which that party is not responsible. Similar view has been taken by the Punjab High Court in the case of Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 1, where it has been held that a Judicial Tribunal could recall and quash its own order in exceptional cases when it was shown that it was obtained by fraud or by palpable mistake or was made in utter ignorance of a statutory provision and the like. Their Lordships of the Punjab High Court further held that if the proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of judicial proceedings, then the Appellate Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to correct an error. 10. The order passed by the Tribunal in this case was on the basis, of wrong information furnished by the....