INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, filed at the instance of the Revenue seeks to challenge the order dated November 11, 1985, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, in M. A. No. 24 (Pat) of 1985. By the impugned order, the Tribunal recalled an earlier order passed by it (with a different set of numbers) in I. T. A. No. 798 (Pat) of 1983 and fixed the matter for rehearing. The material facts can be briefly stated as follows.

(2.) DURING the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee was found to have encashed from the Reserve Bank of India 100 pieces of currency notes of Rs. 1,000 denomination on January 24, 1978. As to their source, the assessee took the stand before the Income-tax Officer that those notes were received by it in the course of its business transactions. It was stated that the transactions in the course of which the notes in question were received, were recorded in the Batsari account. By way of explanation for not depositing those high denomination notes at the State Bank of India, it was stated that those notes were sent out to Bhopal, Nanded and other places for making purchases of foodgrains, etc., on behalf of the firm. In this regard, it was further stated that the assessee-firm had given a sum of Rs. 51,151 to Rajendra Sao on January 12, 1978, and a further sum of Rs. 51,051 to Sri Binod Kumar Tebriwal for making purchases of foodgrains, oil seeds, etc., on its behalf from outside the State. The Income-tax Officer found that Rajendra Sao was a petty employee of the firm working on a monthly salary of Rs. 300 and it was, therefore, unlikely that he would be entrusted with such a large sum and would be sent to other States for making purchases on behalf of the firm. He also did not accept the story of money having been given to Binod Kumar Tebriwal for making purchases for the firm. He examined a number of persons having business dealings with the firm as witnesses, who denied having given any 1,000 rupee notes to the firm in the course of their business transactions. As regards the Batsari account, the Income-tax Officer noted that a special survey of the firm's business premises was conducted on February 15, 1978, in the course of which the assessee had not produced the Batsari account before the Officer visiting the shop.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and we have carefully gone through the two orders passed by the Tribunal. WE are of the definite opinion that in passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has veritably sat in appeal over an order passed by its predecessor members, and has plainly exceeded its jurisdiction. Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under Sub-section (1) with a view to rectify a mistake apparent from the record.