Income-tax---

----Reference---Rectification of mistake---Decision of Tribunal following decision of one High Court and not of another High Court---Tribunal justified in holding that there was no mistake in its order which could be rectified---No question of law arose.

Held. that the Tribunal was justified in holding that its decision based . on the case of Additional C.I.T. v. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj). and ignoring the decision on the same issue by the Allahabad High Court in J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 326 was not a mistake of law rectifiable under section 254 and no question of law arose from its order.

Additional C.I.T. v. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Srivastava (J.P.) and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All.) and Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No.l) v. C.I.T. (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) ref.

Vikram Gulati for the Assessee.

JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ.---This Income-tax reference is preferred against the order of the Tribunal made on a petition for rectification riled by the assessee. Against the order of the Tribunal from which Income-tax Reference No.71 of 1986 (Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No.l) v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.)) arises, the assessee filed an application for rectification on the ground that the Tribunal has not noticed a particular decision of this Court and, therefore, the decision suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record. That petition was dismissed by the Tribunal where on the present Income-tax reference was obtained. The questions sought to be raised are three in number, which are as follows:

"(a) Whether the decision of the Tribunal based on the case of Addl. CIT v. Mukuil Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj.), and by ignoring the decision on the same issue of the jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 was not a mistake of law rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

(b) Whether the finding in the order under section 254(2) that the said decision of the Allahabad High Court was considered by the Tribunal was not illegal and erroneous as it was contradictory to the observations made in the original appellate order dated 31st March, 1986, to the effect that the assessee has filed various judgments but these need not be looked into?

(c) Whether the. Tribunal was correct on facts and in law in not rectifying the mistake under section 254(2) by ignoring the binding decision of the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of J.P. Srivastava and .9ons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT..(1978) 111 ITR 326?"

In view of our decision dated August 22, 1990, in Income-tax Reference No.71 of 1986 (Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (N o. 1) v. A CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412), we do not think that there was any error on the face of the record which warranted review of the Tribunal's order.

The Income-tax reference is dismissed. No costs.

M.B.A./1569/T??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference dismissed.