Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal

Decided On : Dec-15-2003

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 256(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the IT Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 254(2)?'2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 139(2',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 254(2',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 254(2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kulshrestha',
			(int) 1 => 'Gunvanti Bai',
			(int) 2 => 'Chand Mehta',
			(int) 3 => 'Anr',
			(int) 4 => 'Anr'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24th April, 1996',
			(int) 1 => '1993',
			(int) 2 => 'Jan., 1990',
			(int) 3 => '1969-70',
			(int) 4 => '32 months',
			(int) 5 => 'Jan., 1990',
			(int) 6 => 'Dec., 1992',
			(int) 7 => 'Jan., 1990'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'MCC No',
			(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'AAC',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'AO',
			(int) 6 => 'AAC',
			(int) 7 => 'AAC',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'AAC',
			(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'CIT',
			(int) 15 => 'CIT',
			(int) 16 => 'the Orissa High Court',
			(int) 17 => 'CIT',
			(int) 18 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 21 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Department'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '489',
			(int) 1 => '10',
			(int) 2 => '4,15,960',
			(int) 3 => '5.00',
			(int) 4 => '1990.3',
			(int) 5 => '1996]219ITR632(MP',
			(int) 6 => '1996]220ITR277(MP',
			(int) 7 => '1992]196ITR640(Orissa'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7th',
			(int) 1 => 'fourth',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => '7th',
			(int) 4 => '7th',
			(int) 5 => '4th',
			(int) 6 => '7th'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510655',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 254 and 254(2)',
			'appealno' => 'IT Ref. No. 9 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)]. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.L. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia and Chhabra, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-12-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Kulshrestha and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Kulshrestha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On being directed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'), by order dt. 24th April, 1996, passed in MCC No. 489 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in giving another opinion on the same set of facts after recalling its own order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2)?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-assessee in response to notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, filed return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 after a delay of 32 months declaring a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, however, did not produce its books of accounts inspite of repeated notices as a result of which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC and thereafter before the Tribunal. At both the stages, the matter was set aside/remanded to the AO. Again in the fourth round, the AAC determined the loss from business at Rs. 4,15,960 and the income from undisclosed sources at Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the order of the AAC, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the order of the AAC and dismissed the appeal by order dt. 7th Jan., 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee thereafter moved an application under Section 254 of the Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 was recalled. The Tribunal thereafter allowed the appeal by order dt. 4th Dec., 1992. It is in this context that the Revenue has sought the reference of the above quoted question for the opinion of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned senior counsel for the Revenue has submitted that power under Section 254 of the Act is limited and restricted to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and not for deciding the matter over again on merits. In this connection, learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Gunvanti Bai : [1996]219ITR632(MP) and Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT : [1996]220ITR277(MP) . Reference has also been made to the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT and Anr. v. ITAT and Anr. : [1992]196ITR640(Orissa) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue deal with the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act with regard to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, In the present case, the question does not seek the opinion of this Court with regard to the scope of the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act and had it been so, there would not have been any difficulty in holding that the Tribunal did not have the power to set aside its order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2). What is being posed for the opinion of this Court is whether the Tribunal could have given another opinion on the same set of facts. On due consideration of the material before us, we are of the opinion that since the earlier opinion of the Tribunal, on being set aside in exercise of the power under Section 254(2), cannot be said to be an opinion on record, there was no impediment for the Tribunal to form another opinion on the basis of the facts of the case and it was open to the Revenue to challenge the opinion/conclusions of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question against the Department and in favour of the Revenue (sic-assessee).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2004)188CTR(MP)581',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gangaprasad Bachulal',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510655'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 256(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the IT Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 254(2)?'2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 139(2',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 254(2',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 254(2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kulshrestha',
		(int) 1 => 'Gunvanti Bai',
		(int) 2 => 'Chand Mehta',
		(int) 3 => 'Anr',
		(int) 4 => 'Anr'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24th April, 1996',
		(int) 1 => '1993',
		(int) 2 => 'Jan., 1990',
		(int) 3 => '1969-70',
		(int) 4 => '32 months',
		(int) 5 => 'Jan., 1990',
		(int) 6 => 'Dec., 1992',
		(int) 7 => 'Jan., 1990'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'MCC No',
		(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'AAC',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'AO',
		(int) 6 => 'AAC',
		(int) 7 => 'AAC',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'AAC',
		(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'CIT',
		(int) 15 => 'CIT',
		(int) 16 => 'the Orissa High Court',
		(int) 17 => 'CIT',
		(int) 18 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 21 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Department'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '489',
		(int) 1 => '10',
		(int) 2 => '4,15,960',
		(int) 3 => '5.00',
		(int) 4 => '1990.3',
		(int) 5 => '1996]219ITR632(MP',
		(int) 6 => '1996]220ITR277(MP',
		(int) 7 => '1992]196ITR640(Orissa'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7th',
		(int) 1 => 'fourth',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => '7th',
		(int) 4 => '7th',
		(int) 5 => '4th',
		(int) 6 => '7th'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510655',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 254 and 254(2)',
		'appealno' => 'IT Ref. No. 9 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)]. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.L. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia and Chhabra, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-12-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Kulshrestha and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Kulshrestha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On being directed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'), by order dt. 24th April, 1996, passed in MCC No. 489 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in giving another opinion on the same set of facts after recalling its own order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2)?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-assessee in response to notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, filed return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 after a delay of 32 months declaring a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, however, did not produce its books of accounts inspite of repeated notices as a result of which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC and thereafter before the Tribunal. At both the stages, the matter was set aside/remanded to the AO. Again in the fourth round, the AAC determined the loss from business at Rs. 4,15,960 and the income from undisclosed sources at Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the order of the AAC, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the order of the AAC and dismissed the appeal by order dt. 7th Jan., 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee thereafter moved an application under Section 254 of the Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 was recalled. The Tribunal thereafter allowed the appeal by order dt. 4th Dec., 1992. It is in this context that the Revenue has sought the reference of the above quoted question for the opinion of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned senior counsel for the Revenue has submitted that power under Section 254 of the Act is limited and restricted to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and not for deciding the matter over again on merits. In this connection, learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Gunvanti Bai : [1996]219ITR632(MP) and Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT : [1996]220ITR277(MP) . Reference has also been made to the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT and Anr. v. ITAT and Anr. : [1992]196ITR640(Orissa) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue deal with the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act with regard to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, In the present case, the question does not seek the opinion of this Court with regard to the scope of the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act and had it been so, there would not have been any difficulty in holding that the Tribunal did not have the power to set aside its order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2). What is being posed for the opinion of this Court is whether the Tribunal could have given another opinion on the same set of facts. On due consideration of the material before us, we are of the opinion that since the earlier opinion of the Tribunal, on being set aside in exercise of the power under Section 254(2), cannot be said to be an opinion on record, there was no impediment for the Tribunal to form another opinion on the basis of the facts of the case and it was open to the Revenue to challenge the opinion/conclusions of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question against the Department and in favour of the Revenue (sic-assessee).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2004)188CTR(MP)581',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gangaprasad Bachulal',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510655'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 256(2',
			(int) 1 => 'the IT Act',
			(int) 2 => 'Section 254(2)?'2',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 139(2',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
			(int) 5 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 254(2',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 254(2'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Kulshrestha',
			(int) 1 => 'Gunvanti Bai',
			(int) 2 => 'Chand Mehta',
			(int) 3 => 'Anr',
			(int) 4 => 'Anr'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '24th April, 1996',
			(int) 1 => '1993',
			(int) 2 => 'Jan., 1990',
			(int) 3 => '1969-70',
			(int) 4 => '32 months',
			(int) 5 => 'Jan., 1990',
			(int) 6 => 'Dec., 1992',
			(int) 7 => 'Jan., 1990'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'MCC No',
			(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 3 => 'AAC',
			(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 5 => 'AO',
			(int) 6 => 'AAC',
			(int) 7 => 'AAC',
			(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 10 => 'AAC',
			(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 13 => 'Court',
			(int) 14 => 'CIT',
			(int) 15 => 'CIT',
			(int) 16 => 'the Orissa High Court',
			(int) 17 => 'CIT',
			(int) 18 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 19 => 'Court',
			(int) 20 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
			(int) 21 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 22 => 'Court',
			(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
			(int) 27 => 'Department'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '489',
			(int) 1 => '10',
			(int) 2 => '4,15,960',
			(int) 3 => '5.00',
			(int) 4 => '1990.3',
			(int) 5 => '1996]219ITR632(MP',
			(int) 6 => '1996]220ITR277(MP',
			(int) 7 => '1992]196ITR640(Orissa'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '7th',
			(int) 1 => 'fourth',
			(int) 2 => 'second',
			(int) 3 => '7th',
			(int) 4 => '7th',
			(int) 5 => '4th',
			(int) 6 => '7th'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510655',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 254 and 254(2)',
			'appealno' => 'IT Ref. No. 9 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)]. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.L. Jain, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia and Chhabra, Advs.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2003-12-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.K. Kulshrestha and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Kulshrestha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On being directed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'), by order dt. 24th April, 1996, passed in MCC No. 489 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in giving another opinion on the same set of facts after recalling its own order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2)?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-assessee in response to notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, filed return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 after a delay of 32 months declaring a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, however, did not produce its books of accounts inspite of repeated notices as a result of which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC and thereafter before the Tribunal. At both the stages, the matter was set aside/remanded to the AO. Again in the fourth round, the AAC determined the loss from business at Rs. 4,15,960 and the income from undisclosed sources at Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the order of the AAC, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the order of the AAC and dismissed the appeal by order dt. 7th Jan., 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee thereafter moved an application under Section 254 of the Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 was recalled. The Tribunal thereafter allowed the appeal by order dt. 4th Dec., 1992. It is in this context that the Revenue has sought the reference of the above quoted question for the opinion of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned senior counsel for the Revenue has submitted that power under Section 254 of the Act is limited and restricted to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and not for deciding the matter over again on merits. In this connection, learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Gunvanti Bai : [1996]219ITR632(MP) and Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT : [1996]220ITR277(MP) . Reference has also been made to the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT and Anr. v. ITAT and Anr. : [1992]196ITR640(Orissa) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue deal with the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act with regard to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, In the present case, the question does not seek the opinion of this Court with regard to the scope of the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act and had it been so, there would not have been any difficulty in holding that the Tribunal did not have the power to set aside its order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2). What is being posed for the opinion of this Court is whether the Tribunal could have given another opinion on the same set of facts. On due consideration of the material before us, we are of the opinion that since the earlier opinion of the Tribunal, on being set aside in exercise of the power under Section 254(2), cannot be said to be an opinion on record, there was no impediment for the Tribunal to form another opinion on the basis of the facts of the case and it was open to the Revenue to challenge the opinion/conclusions of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question against the Department and in favour of the Revenue (sic-assessee).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2004)188CTR(MP)581',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Gangaprasad Bachulal',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510655'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 256(2',
		(int) 1 => 'the IT Act',
		(int) 2 => 'Section 254(2)?'2',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 139(2',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 144',
		(int) 5 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 254(2',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 254(2'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Kulshrestha',
		(int) 1 => 'Gunvanti Bai',
		(int) 2 => 'Chand Mehta',
		(int) 3 => 'Anr',
		(int) 4 => 'Anr'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '24th April, 1996',
		(int) 1 => '1993',
		(int) 2 => 'Jan., 1990',
		(int) 3 => '1969-70',
		(int) 4 => '32 months',
		(int) 5 => 'Jan., 1990',
		(int) 6 => 'Dec., 1992',
		(int) 7 => 'Jan., 1990'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'MCC No',
		(int) 1 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 2 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 3 => 'AAC',
		(int) 4 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 5 => 'AO',
		(int) 6 => 'AAC',
		(int) 7 => 'AAC',
		(int) 8 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 9 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 10 => 'AAC',
		(int) 11 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 12 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 13 => 'Court',
		(int) 14 => 'CIT',
		(int) 15 => 'CIT',
		(int) 16 => 'the Orissa High Court',
		(int) 17 => 'CIT',
		(int) 18 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 19 => 'Court',
		(int) 20 => 'the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act',
		(int) 21 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 22 => 'Court',
		(int) 23 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 24 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 25 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 26 => 'Tribunal',
		(int) 27 => 'Department'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '489',
		(int) 1 => '10',
		(int) 2 => '4,15,960',
		(int) 3 => '5.00',
		(int) 4 => '1990.3',
		(int) 5 => '1996]219ITR632(MP',
		(int) 6 => '1996]220ITR277(MP',
		(int) 7 => '1992]196ITR640(Orissa'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '7th',
		(int) 1 => 'fourth',
		(int) 2 => 'second',
		(int) 3 => '7th',
		(int) 4 => '7th',
		(int) 5 => '4th',
		(int) 6 => '7th'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510655',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 254 and 254(2)',
		'appealno' => 'IT Ref. No. 9 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gangaprasad Bachulal',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)]. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.L. Jain, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia and Chhabra, Advs.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2003-12-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.K. Kulshrestha and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.K. Kulshrestha, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. On being directed under Section 256(2) of the IT Act (for short, 'the Act'), by order dt. 24th April, 1996, passed in MCC No. 489 of 1993, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was justified in law in giving another opinion on the same set of facts after recalling its own order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2)?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-assessee in response to notice under Section 139(2) of the Act, filed return for the asst. yr. 1969-70 after a delay of 32 months declaring a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs from business. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee, however, did not produce its books of accounts inspite of repeated notices as a result of which the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act. The assessee took the matter in appeal before the AAC and thereafter before the Tribunal. At both the stages, the matter was set aside/remanded to the AO. Again in the fourth round, the AAC determined the loss from business at Rs. 4,15,960 and the income from undisclosed sources at Rs. 5.00 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the order of the AAC, the assessee filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, upheld the order of the AAC and dismissed the appeal by order dt. 7th Jan., 1990.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The assessee thereafter moved an application under Section 254 of the Act which was allowed by the Tribunal and the order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 was recalled. The Tribunal thereafter allowed the appeal by order dt. 4th Dec., 1992. It is in this context that the Revenue has sought the reference of the above quoted question for the opinion of this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned senior counsel for the Revenue has submitted that power under Section 254 of the Act is limited and restricted to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record and not for deciding the matter over again on merits. In this connection, learned counsel has invited attention to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Gunvanti Bai : [1996]219ITR632(MP) and Prakash Chand Mehta v. CIT : [1996]220ITR277(MP) . Reference has also been made to the decision of the Orissa High Court in CIT and Anr. v. ITAT and Anr. : [1992]196ITR640(Orissa) .</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue deal with the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act with regard to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, In the present case, the question does not seek the opinion of this Court with regard to the scope of the power of the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act and had it been so, there would not have been any difficulty in holding that the Tribunal did not have the power to set aside its order dt. 7th Jan., 1990 under Section 254(2). What is being posed for the opinion of this Court is whether the Tribunal could have given another opinion on the same set of facts. On due consideration of the material before us, we are of the opinion that since the earlier opinion of the Tribunal, on being set aside in exercise of the power under Section 254(2), cannot be said to be an opinion on record, there was no impediment for the Tribunal to form another opinion on the basis of the facts of the case and it was open to the Revenue to challenge the opinion/conclusions of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we answer the question against the Department and in favour of the Revenue (sic-assessee).<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2004)188CTR(MP)581',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Gangaprasad Bachulal',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510655'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 256(2, the IT Act, Section 254(2)?'2, Section 139(2, Section 144, Section 254 of the Act, Section 254 of the Act, Section 254(2, Section 254(2

PERSON: Kulshrestha, Gunvanti Bai, Chand Mehta, Anr, Anr

NORP: J.1

DATE: 24th April, 1996, 1993, Jan., 1990, 1969-70, 32 months, Jan., 1990, Dec., 1992, Jan., 1990

ORG: MCC No, Tribunal, Tribunal, AAC, Tribunal, AO, AAC, AAC, Tribunal, Tribunal, AAC, Tribunal, Tribunal, Court, CIT, CIT, the Orissa High Court, CIT, the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, Court, the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, Tribunal, Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Department

CARDINAL: 489, 10, 4,15,960, 5.00, 1990.3, 1996]219ITR632(MP, 1996]220ITR277(MP, 1992]196ITR640(Orissa

ORDINAL: 7th, fourth, second, 7th, 7th, 4th, 7th