2007 (4) TMI 259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is case: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in coming to the conclusion that there was no apparent mistake of law and facts in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated February 3, 1983, which could be rectified under section 154(1)(b) and 154(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether the observation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....section 154(1)(b) and 154(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; or (b) whether in the garb of rectification, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had actually resorted to exercise of a power of review, which obviously he does not possess under the statute. 3. Apparently, where a decision has been arrived at after considering the relevant material and after appropriate reasoning, although the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Thus, the power of the income-tax authorities has been confined by the Supreme Court to the above type of limited cases, where rectification under section 154 is permissible, and for other mistakes, correction has been left to the higher forums. 6. Having examined the facts set out in the statement of case and more importantly in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal dated June 13, 1986, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, in fact was making an attempt to review his order, for which he has not been vested with powers under the statute." 7. Therefore, our answer to question No. 1 is that the conclusion of the Tribunal was legally correct. Our answer to question No. 2 is that the observation of the Tribunal is correct. 8. So far as the third question above is concerned, the limitation for assessment is eight ....