| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
September 15, 2008 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified, HELD, upholding the order of the Tribunal:
(i) A mistake apparent from the record is one that is patent, manifest and self-evident and which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it;
(ii) The non-consideration of a decision of jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court is a “mistake apparent from the record” irrespective of whether such decision was rendered prior or subsequent to the rectification;
(iiii) A judicial decision acts retrospectively because it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a `new rule’ but to maintain and expound the `old one’. Judges do not make law; they only discover or find the correct law. A subsequent decision which alters the earlier one has to be applied retrospectively;
(iv) Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.
See also: Honda Siel vs. CIT (SC) & Deva Metal Products (SC).
Related Posts:
- ACIT vs. Marico Ltd (Supreme Court) The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be…
- Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
- In Re: Guidelines For Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic (Supreme… Every individual and institution is expected to cooperate in the implementation of measures designed to reduce the transmission of the virus. The scaling down conventional operations within the precincts of courts is a measure in that direction. Access to justice is fundamental to preserve the rule of law in the…
- Raj Pal Singh vs. CIT (Supreme Court) For chargeability of income-tax, the income ought to have either arrived or accrued. In the matter of acquisition of land under the Act of 1894, taking over of possession before arrival of relevant stage for such taking over may give rise to a potential right in the owner of the…
- UOI vs. P. D. Sunny (Supreme Court) There shall be ex-parte ad-interim stay of the impugned judgment and order(s) passed in the aforesaid writ petitions and of further proceedings before the High Court(s), in view of the stand taken by the Government of India through learned Solicitor General, before us, that the Government is fully conscious of…
- Ramnath & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar (2018) 9 SCC 1, when applied to incentive provisions like those for deduction, would also be that the burden lies on the assessee to prove its applicability to his case; and if there be any ambiguity in the deduction…
Recent Comments