( 1 ) THE petitioner-company seeks an appropriate writ to quash the order of the respondent-Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, in M. P. No. 106/h of 1996, dated 1/04/1997, and to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal afresh.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-company is engaged in manufacture and sale of biscuits. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1990-91 by an order dated 20/11/1992, computing the book profits under section 115j of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), at Rs. 6,19,900. Aggrieved by the said computation, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 6/07/1995, confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer, following the decision of this court in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 508. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, by an order dated November 26, 1996, disposed of the appeal by dismissing the same.

( 3 ) THEREUPON, the assessee has filed M. P. No. 106/hyd of 1996, under section 254 (2), of the Act, on 6/12/1996, before the Tribunal, raising grounds that the assessee s counsel never admitted that the issue was covered by the decision in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 508 (AP), and that learned counsel had relied upon several other decisions and that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was distinguishable on the facts. Hence, there could not have been any concession on the part of the assessee s counsel, that the Tribunal had not referred to the submissions of the assessee s counsel nor discussed the decisions cited by him. Thus, there was a patent mistake in the Tribunal s order, in so far as there was not only a mistake in the statement of facts but also omission to consider the evidence filed before it in support of the submissions of the assessee, the decisions cited and the entries in the audited profit and loss account.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal, considering the above grounds, dismissed the miscellaneous petition by an order dated 1/04/1997, holding that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the order and that the Tribunal was right in passing the order and that under section 254 (2) of the Act it was not possible to review the order of the Tribunal. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner-company filed the present writ petition.

( 5 ) IT was strenuously contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed a grave error in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was admitted by the petitioner s counsel that the issue was covered by the judgment of this court in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 508, which was wholly untrue. It is further contended that learned counsel has placed material before the Tribunal and raised several contentions in support of his case, which were not considered by the Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner was that the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on the concession alleged to have been made by counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal, which is a patent mistake liable to be corrected under section 254 (2) of the Act. Thus, the controversy that is to be ascertained is about what happened before the Tribunal during the arguments of appeal - whether counsel for the appellant agreed that the case was covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court or not. Though Sri Satyanarayana Rao, appearing for the petitioner, forcefully submits that he himself argued the matter before the Tribunal and that he never made such a concession and in fact he distinguished the case on the merits from the decision in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 508 (AP), and submitted several other arguments citing decisions in support of his case, it is significant to see that the assessee raised the same objection before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document