Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Radha Swami Satsang. on 19 September, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987)57CTR(ALL)298, [1987]167ITR121(ALL)
JUDGMENT
This is an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the following reliefs :
"The respondent-applicant most respectfully prays that this Honble Court be pleased to :
(a) Clarify and/or rectify and/or modify the judgment dated July 7, 1980, to the effect as set out in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 hereinabove and give effect to the same by appropriately correcting the judgment referred to hereinabove; and
(b) Pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
The facts of this case have been mentioned in the judgment [See [1981] 132 ITR 647 (ALL) of Income-tax Reference `No. 948 of 1975 in which this application has been made. The question referred before the High Court was :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the income derived by the Radha Swami Satsang, a religious institution, is entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"
The said question had been answered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the applicant. On the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, filing the income-tax reference, a Division Bench of this court consisting of Honble C.S.P. Singh J. and Honble R. R. Rastogi J. reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and the question was answered in the negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
Learned counsel for the applicant urged that on the findings given by the High Court, the applicant was entitled to be given the benefit of section 11(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act and this having not been done, there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the application made under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, does not confer upon us the power to grant the relief sought for therein. Under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the power to pass orders ex debito justitiae has been preserved. This section has not conferring any new power but has only confirmed pre-existing powers to act ex debit justitiae. This is a power inherent in a court by virtue of its due to do justice between the parties before it. The inherent power, however, cannot be exercised when the Code of Civil Procedure itself provides for a particular situation or contingency or points out the procedure to be adopted.
Reverting to the present case, the High Court while deciding the reference application, was exercising the advisory jurisdiction which is special in nature and entitles the court to exercise only those powers which have been conferred by the Income-tax Act. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the High court can under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure correct the mistakes which have been alleged to have crept in the judgment of the High Court. We may at the threshold guard ourselves by saying that for the error which was pointed out by learned counsel (on which we are expressing no opinion), the remedy lay in filling an appeal against the same. The power of correction of judgment is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables an appellate court to correct all types of errors in judgment or to set aside the same.
The submission of learned counsel was that on the finding given by the High Court, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of section 11(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, even if clause (a) of section 11(1) did not apply. The question referred to the High Court has been answered in the negative. The claim of the petitioner under section 11 has been negatives in its entirety. Even if we were to assume that every court of plenary jurisdiction in order to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it can allow an application for correction, the present is not a case where we can grant the relief prayed for in the application under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, There are definite limits to the exercise of the powers conferred by section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In Daman Singh v. State of Punjab [1986] 60 Comp Cas 1, the Supreme Court observed (at pages 12 and 13) :
"No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to makes a grievance that the grounds not argued was not considered, If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered, it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior courts is not to be wasted in enquiring into the question whether a certain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not."
Relying upon the above passage of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the applicant urged that this court is obliged to correct the mistake by noting that the argument about the applicability of section 11(1)(b) had been made before it. Sri V. P. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, also stated before us that the argument about the applicability of the aforesaid provision in the alternative had been advanced by him in the High Court and wrongly the argument had not been noted and decided.
In our view, the present is not a case to which the observations of the Supreme Court extracted above could be applied. We are not in a position to adjudicate upon this controversy in this application. In fact, granting of the application would result in reviewing the judgment of this court which is knot the scope of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Having found no merit in this application, we reject the same. But in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.