| Case ID |
3a63c2c4-3ded-4e11-9a87-6a01563571f4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 2010 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 02, 2010 |
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to recall its own order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provided that the Tribunal is satisfied that a manifest error has resulted in prejudice to a party. The court emphasized that the principle of legal certainty necessitates that no party should suffer due to mistakes made by the Tribunal. It was clarified that the Tribunal's powers to recall an order are not absolute but can be exercised in specific circumstances where a mistake is apparent from the record. The court overruled previous decisions which suggested that the Tribunal had no power to recall its entire order, asserting that such a stance was inconsistent with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case decided by the Delhi High Court, the court examined the powers of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The central issue was whether the Tribunal could recall its orders in light of manifest errors that resulted in prejudice to parties involved. The court found that the Tribunal does possess the authority to rectify its orders under certain conditions, thus ensuring that no party suffers due to judicial oversight. This decision is pivotal in reinforcing the principles of justice, equity, and the importance of rectifying judicial errors to maintain the integrity of the legal process. The ruling aligns with trending discussions on judicial accountability and the mechanisms available to courts to correct mistakes, thereby fostering a fair judicial environment. The case also references significant precedents that elucidate the balance between judicial discretion and the rights of the parties concerned, making it a critical point of reference for future cases involving similar issues. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Dipak Misra, C.J.,
A. K. Sikri,
Manmohan, JJ.
|
| Lawyers |
R.M. Mehta,
Deepak Chopra
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
2010 SLD 3024,
(2010) 329 ITR 243
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. K.L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361,
Ms. Deeksha Suri v. ITAT [1998] 232 ITR 395,
Karan & Co. v. ITAT [2002] 253 ITR 131,
J.N. Sahni v. ITAT [2002] 257 ITR 16,
CIT v. Vichtra Construction (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 371,
Om Prakash Bhola v. CIT [2005] 273 ITR 291,
Ras Bihari Bansal v. CIT [2007] 293 ITR 365,
Perfetti Van Melle India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 296 ITR 595,
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466,
Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
254(2)
|