TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (11) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing registration to the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1978-79 ? " Facts : The assessee, Mithalal Ashok Kumar, claimed the status of registered firm on the basis of a deed of partnership dated October 21, 1976. The application for registration was filed on March 21, 1977. The constitution of the said partnership firm was shown as below : (1) Shri Mithalal, karta, representing the HUF styled as " Mithalal Chhaganlal " 35% share. (2) Smt. Pyaribai w/o. Mithalal 30% share. (3) Smt. Pushpabai w/o. Abhayakumar 30% share. (4) Shri Ashok Kumar s/o. Mithalal 5% share. The Income-tax Officer noticed that there was already in existence firm styled as M/s. Abhayakumar Jaswantkumar, Indore. It was assessed by another Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Officer, he found that they did not have any knowledge of business of the alleged firm. They were only housewives. Smt. Pyaribai, when shown the partnership deed by the Income-tax Officer, displayed ignorance thereof. On a consideration of the material gathered by the Income-tax Officer, he came to the conclusion that no genuine firm styled as " Mithalal Ashok Kumar " came into existence. He held that this entity is only a branch business of the firm already existing, namely, M/s. Abhayakumar Jaswantkumar. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment of the assessee in the status of an " AOP " as a protective measure. He further held that the income of the assessee will be included in the assessment of M/s. Abhayakumar Jaswantkumar.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same are apparent from the record. We have already held in preceding paras that section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically empowers the Tribunal to rectify any order passed by it. As discussed above, the Tribunal has inherent power to rectify a wrong committed by itself .In such cases, really speaking, the Tribunal will not be exercising the power of review. We have pointed out the circumstances under which we have committed a wrong or an error in deciding the appeal. In our opinion, the mistakes committed are apparent from the record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we set aside our order and accordingly order is set aside. The appeal shall be heard again and the same shall be discussed after hearing the parties. Since ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....58 ITR 755 (MP), has great a bearing on the question proposed in this petition by the Revenue, because it is a consequential one. By detailed order passed by us today in M.C.C. No. 49 of 1984, we have declined to call upon the Tribunal to make a reference as urged on behalf of the Revenue. In the present case, it is clear that the Tribunal, after rectifying its mistake and taking into consideration the material on record, which it had failed to consider earlier has come to a conclusion that the assessee-firm was a genuine firm. This is purely a finding of fact and in such a situation, no question of law as such arises and, in this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in CIT v. M. P. Bidi Leaves & Company [1983] 144 ITR 487 (MP....