L SOHANRAJ Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, by its common order dated December 31, 1998, has allowed in part, the Appeals Nos. 63 to 67 of 1997, 68 to 72 of 1997, 73 to 77 of 1997, 78 to 82 of 1987, 180 to 184 of 1997, 185 to 189 of 1997, 190 to 194 of 1997, 195 to 199 of 1997 and 84 to 87 of 1997 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94, preferred by the assessees and the Income-tax Department, against the orders framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated December 27, 1996. THE petitioners being of the view that there are certain mistakes, which are apparent on the face of the record/order made by the Tribunal, had filed common petitions under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, seeking rectification of the mistake apparent on the face of the record and those miscellaneous petitions are rejected by the Tribunal by its common order dated July 23, 1999, on the sole ground that the petitioners are seeking a review of the order made by the Tribunal, which is impermissible under Section 254(2) of the Act. It is the correctness or otherwise of this common order made by the Tribunal, which is called in question by the petitioners before this court in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IN Chapter XX of the INcome-tax Act, the Legislature has thought it fit to introduce Sections 260A and 260B to provide for an appeal to the High Court against the orders made by the INcome-tax Appellate Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The objects and reasons for introducing these new provisions is found in the Bill (see [1998] 231 ITR (St.) 84, 246). The same is as under :