Income Tax Act (XI of 1922)---

----S.66(1)---Review of judgment passed in income tax Reference---Application for review, maintainability---Jurisdiction vesting in High Court under S.66(1) of the Act was purely of an advisory character and was in the nature of special and limited jurisdiction which did not form part of the High Court's original or Appellate jurisdiction and as such no application for review of order passed in Reference was competent.

Palkhivala's Commentary on the Law and Practice of Income Tax, seventh edition, P.1148 ref.

Applicant in person.

Shaikh Haider for Respondent.

ORDER

By this review application, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment earlier given by us on 19-9-1991, declining to answer the reference made to us by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Mr. Shaikh Haider, learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared in response to the notice issued in respect of the review application has raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the present review application, as according to him, the jurisdiction which was exercised by us is purely of advisory character. Such jurisdiction was, therefore, a special jurisdiction which does not form part of the High Court's original or Appellate jurisdiction. Reference has been made in this regard by the learned counsel to page 1148 of Palkhivala's Commentary on the Law and Practice of Income Tax, seventh edition, wherein the author has observed as follows: ---

"Advisory jurisdiction of Court.---The High Court or the Supreme Court is constituted a Court of appeal under this section or section 257 (Cf. S.269H.). The jurisdiction which it exercises in dealing with income-tax reference is only an advisory jurisdiction. It is strictly limited jurisdiction arid the limit of that jurisdiction is clearly laid down in this section and section 260. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by this section is a special jurisdiction and forms no part of the High Court's Original or Appellate jurisdiction."

Again at page 1170 of the same book, the author has observed:

"Review.---An application for review of a judgment passed by a High Court in a reference is not maintainable, for the High Court which determines the questions referred under section 256 does not act as a Civil Court so as to attract the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the Court has inherent jurisdiction to correct accidental errors or omissions in its judgment and to set aside an order passed ex parte. See further under section 256, "Advisory jurisdiction of Court p. 1148."

The applicant, who has appeared before us in person is unable to place before us anything from which it can be spelt out that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the review petition. All that he has referred to, are the merits of the case itself. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the applicant has already approached the Supreme Court by filing a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court, dated 19-9-1991. The petition filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits vide its order dated 13-1-1992, and leave has been refused by the Supreme Court to appeal against the said judgment. Needless to say, that the judgment of this Court has now merged into the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 13-1-1992, whereby leave to appeal has already been refused by the Hon'able Supreme Court, as just pointed out. In any case, as we have already pointed out, the present review application is even otherwise not maintainable.

In the result, we find no force in this review application and the same is dismissed with costs.

C.M.As. No.32/91 and 15/92 are also disposed of as having become infructuous.

M.BA./N-452/K ???????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.