TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (11) TMI 90
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tribunal, while rejecting the miscellaneous applications made by the assessee/petitioner under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inter alia, held that no mistake had crept in its order dated January 30, 1992. In arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal was called upon to deal with a prayer, amongst others, made on behalf of the assessee, for deletion of an alleged admission by the petitioner's counsel, who argued the appeals, to the effect that EDP machines were installed in the premises of the assessee-company. From the order, dated January 30, 1992, the alleged admission appears to have been recorded in paragraph 8 thereof in the following manner : "Admittedly, in the instant case, the EDP machines were installed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in its Pending reference cases. It cannot be denied that the procedure followed by the Tribunal has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice so far as the petitioner/assessee is concerned. No doubt, by its decision, the apex court has laid down that the question as to whether an admission was made or not was to be decided by invoking the jurisdiction of the court before which such an admission is stated to have been made and the conclusion reached by such court would be final except in certain circumstances such as where the vakil or the advocate affirms an affidavit averring that no such concession was made. Even the apex court has gone to the extent of laying down that it will not be open to the members of the Bar to take stands counter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner's counsel, overlooking that a counsel, who is also an officer of it, would not swear an affidavit without being fully and bona fide convinced about the correctness of the facts. We do not for a moment intend to lay down that finality of the Tribunal's view can be disturbed on the basis of an affidavit of a counsel ; but what we propose to say is that such finality, because of its far-reaching effect, must be reached by following a reasonably conscientious procedure seriously and not in a perfunctory, light or closed, manner. We have already indicated our reasons for not accepting the Tribunal's findings in the order impugned before us and when the prejudice resulting therefrom is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission....