The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S. Metal Products Of India, Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No. 23 of 1993DATE OF DECISION : 30.01.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala .... APPLICANT-REVENUE Versus M/s. Metal Products of India, Chandigarh ..... RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the revenue.Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the assessee. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,Chandigarh, has referred the following substantial questions of law, to thisCourt for opinion : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in law in recalling its appellate orderdated 4.8.1975, which had become final u/s 254 (4)of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 in exercise of its inherent power and inrestoring the appeal on its file? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theTribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a second application u/s254 (2) of the Act, after it had already dismissed the earlierapplication of the assessee for rectification made on similar grounds thus putting end to the finality of its previous ordersdated 4.8.1975 and24.8.1976 and reopening the appellateproceedings for disposal on merits afresh? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was apalpable mistake in its appellate order dated 4.8.1975rectifiable u/s 254 (2), of the Act, or under inherent powersinvoked by it?” Vide the impugned order, the matter was remanded. On March1, 2007, learned counsel for the revenue was granted time to find out thestatus of proceedings after remand in terms of the order passed by theTribunal. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for several times for the samepurpose. Today, learned counsel for the revenue states that record of thecase is not traceable, therefore, he is unable to inform the status ofproceedings after the remand. In this regard, he has produced copy of aletter dated 29.1.2008, written by Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (1)Chandigarh, which is taken on record. In view of the aforesaid fact, the instant reference is returnedun-answered. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGEJUDGE