TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (11) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78. During the assessment year in question the Income-tax Officer had disallowed a sum of Rs. 55,383 out of interest claimed by the applicant on the ground that part of the borrowings, have not been utilised by the applicant for the purposes of its business. The disallowance has been upheld by the Tribunal. The application filed under section 256(1) of the Act, seeking reference has been rejected by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the applicant filed a miscellaneous application purporting to be under section 254(2) of the Act contending that the order of the Tribunal suffered from a mistake apparent on the record as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercise of its power under section 254(2) of the Act and it was not a case of review as held by the Tribunal. Learned standing counsel however, submitted that the Tribunal had upheld the orders passed by the authorities wherein disallowance of interest in question paid on the capital borrowed has been upheld on the ground that it had not been utilized by the applicant for the purposes of its business. The order of the Tribunal is one of affirmance and, therefore, no separate reasoning is required to be given. He further submitted that the Tribunal does not possess any power of review. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is order on the point. It is well settled that a statutory authority has no power to review unless the statute specifically confers such power upon it. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the apex court has held that power to review is not an independent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In the case of Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 398 this court has held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to review. Its only power is one of rectification conferred by sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act. In the case of Smt. Dr. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, AIR 1987 SC 2186, the apex court has held that it ....