2013 (4) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in limine, based on its finding that the tax effect involved in the appeal of the Revenue was less than Rs.3 lakhs, and consequently, in view of the Instruction No.3 of 2011 [F. NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ], Dated 9th February, 2011 issued by the CBDT, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable. By the averments made in the present application, discussing various issues involved in the appeal, in the light of the order of the Assessing Officer lpassed for giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue submits that the aggregate tax effect involved was Rs.3,19,996, i.e. more than Rs.3 lakhs, and as such, there is an error on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was not disputed by the learned Departmental Representative, when the decision was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing. The department, having not raised any contentions, to dispute the said finding of the Tribunal, as to the tax effect involved, and by adducing necessary evidence to substantiate the said contentions, at that stage, it cannot be said that there was any mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2012. Even in these proceedings under S.254(2) of the Act, the Revenue has not specifically drew attention to any material available in the record at the stage of hearing on appeal, based on which it could be said that the Tribunal's finding that the tax effect was less than Rs.3 lakh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as no inherent power. Even otherwise, in cases where specific provision delineates the powers of the court or Tribunal, it cannot draw upon its assumed inherent jurisdiction and pass orders as it pleases. The power of rectification which is specifically conferred on the Tribunal has to be exercised in terms of that provision. It cannot be enlarged on any assumption that the Tribunal has got an inherent power of rectification or review or revision. It is axiomatic that such power of review or revision has to be specifically conferred; it cannot be inferred. Unless there is a mistake apparent from the record in the sense of patent, obvious and clear error or mistake, the Tribunal cannot recall its previous order. If the error or mistake is on....