TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll of the earlier order dated 12th February, 2004 disposing of ITA Nos. 145/D/98 titled Ms. Krishna Gupta vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and ITA No. 25/D/1998, Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. Krishna Gupta. 3. The petitioner had earlier filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, being ITA No. 1102/2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 22nd September, 2010, inter-alia holding that in view of the Full Bench decision in ITA No. 724/2010 titled M/s Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the appeal was not maintainable against the order dated 7th December, 2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 7th December, 2007 dismissing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal has no power to recall an order passed by it in exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act. (D) The tribunal, while exercising the power of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act, can recall its order in entirety if it is satisfied that prejudice has resulted to the party which is attributable to the tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error and it has nothing to do with the doctrine or concept of inherent power of review. (E) When the justification of an order passed by the tribunal recalling its own order is assailed in a writ petition, it is required to be tested on the anvil of law laid down by the Apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., (supra) and Saurashtra Kutch Stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (g) After the mistake is corrected, consequential order must follow, and the Tribunal has power to pass all necessary consequential orders." 7. The aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court was challenged in appeal in Supreme Court, in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court came to hold as follows: "The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of jurisdictional court (in this case a decision of the High Court of Gujarat) or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record"? In our opinion, both - the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e court. In Administrative Law, the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order." In the present case, according to the assessee, the Tribunal decided the matter on October 27, 2000. Hiralal Bhagwati, [2000] 246 ITR 188 (Guj) was decided a few months prior to that decision, but it was not brought to the attention of the Tribunal. In our opinion, in the circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law or of jurisdiction in exercising power under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act and in rectifying the "mistake apparent from the record". Since no error was committed by the Tribunal in rectify....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparent from the record. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment o....