Rectification/Review Of Orders

Patel Desai and Co. & Meera Industries vs ACIT & Others

243 ITR 689 (AP)
110 Taxman 531 (AP)

In exercise of writ jurisdiction u/s 226 it is not opened to the High Court to decide whether the conclusion recorded by the Settlement Commission on a question of fact and even law is correct or not. The conclusions reached by a Settlement Commission cannot be nullified except under very limited circumstances such as violation of mandatory procedural requirements, violation of rules of natural justice or lack of nexus between reasons given and the decision taken by the Settlement Commission. In the above case, it was decided that the deduction of development expenditure disallowed as Capital Expenditure by the Income-tax Settlement Commission could not be altered by writ of certiorari. The judicial review power of High Court cannot be extended to review of administrative actions or findings of quasi-judicial Tribunal.

[Top l Back]

C.A.Abraham vs ACIT

109 Taxman 16(Mad)

The High Courts powers of judicial review on decision of the Settlement Commission is very restrictive. In this case, the Assessing Officer and the Settlement Commission proceeded on the basis that the income dealt with in the orders was only undisclosed income and the same had been taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of block period. So, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the fact whether that income was undisclosed income or the income other than undisclosed income would not be gone into. So, it could not be said that the Settlement Commission had followed an illegal procedure, so as to enable the High Court to interfere with the orders of the Commission.

[Top l Back]

M/s. Bhanwar Lal Kanhya Lal, Sarangpur,
F.No. 15/1/36/79/IT

ITSC Delhi
Order dated 05.02.1987

The Commission has the inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong committed by it when that wrong causes prejudice to a party for which that party is not responsible. In a case where the Commission had directed the ITO to examine the old books of account and other documents relied on by the applicant in support of his claim of HUF and the applicant submitted a lot of material before the ITO and he made further verifications of the claim of the applicant, but the order u/s 245D(4) was passed by the Commission without taking into consideration the material furnished by the applicant to the ITO and the enquiries made by him in this regard, the Commission recalled its order and reopened the case for fresh hearing and disposal.

[Top l Back]

Shri Hanooram Bhagwanlal, Ujjain
F.No.15/1/29/78-IT 

ITSC Delhi
Order dated 31.01.1987

The Commission does not have the power to review its own order if the matter raised by the applicant has been properly considered and a conscious decision has been taken thereon. In a case where the assessee filed a miscellaneous application claiming that during the course of hearing it was stated by the Commission that the matter was a petty one and they were inclined to allow it, however, the final order was contrary to this and on verification of the records the Commission found that after hearing both the sides, a speaking order was passed giving reasons in support of its decision, there did not appear to be any mistake apparent from the record and the case could not be reopened or reviewed by the Commission.

[Top l Back]

M/s. H.B. Chemicals, Jullandar City
F.No.18A/1/76/81-IT

ITSC Delhi
Order dated 10.11.1983

In a case where an objection was raised by the applicant for review or rectification of the order passed by the Commission rejecting the application on the ground that the sequence of certain dates had gone unnoticed or their effect had not been properly appreciated as a result of which a mistake had crept in, it was held that there was no mistake apparent on the record and the prayer of the applicant merely was for revaluing and reexamining the evidence and the report of the Commissioner. The application was accordingly rejected.

[Top l Back]