1974 (9) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner returned the memorandum of appeal to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner-company applied for a certified copy of the notice of demand. The same was given to it on 18th October, 1972. The company filed the memorandum of appeal again on 19th October, 1972, attaching with it the certified copy of the notice of demand. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on 11th May, 1973, passed an order condoning the delay and admitting the appeal. It appears that Sri R. R. Jha, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who passed the order dated 11th May, 1973, was transferred and was succeeded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sri C. D. Basu. Sri C. D. Basu on 24th July, 1973, passed an order (annexure "II") indicating that he was una....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Section 250 authorises the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to fix a day and place for the hearing of the appeal and, after hearing the parties, to decide it. Section 154 confers special power upon the income-tax authorities of rectifying any mistake. It provides: "154. (1) With a view to, rectifying any mistake apparent from the record-- (a) the Income-tax Officer may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him; (b) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may amend any order passed by him under section 250 or section 271; ......" It is apparent that though the Income-tax Officer had power to amend any order passed by him....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case is inapplicable on facts because no such situation has arisen here. The Income-tax Act authorises the disposal of an appeal by the Tribunal after hearing the parties. If for any reason the parties had not been heard, the statutory rule had been violated. The principle laid down in this case will not apply to a situation where the power of rectification is conferred by one statute and is expressly confined to certain types of orders only. Under the guise of inherent power the authorities concerned could not catch within the purview of the power of rectification, an order expressly kept out of it. The decision of this court in Shri Bhagwan Radha Kishen was followed by the Punjab High Court in Mangat Ram Kuthiala v. Commissioner of Incom....