The High Court has inherent power to entertain an application praying for setting aside an order made in a reference under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of manifest injustice and patent error of law.

( 1 ) IN this application presented under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting-aside the order of this Court passed in I. T. R. C. No. 216 of 1984 and to pass a fresh order after hearing the matter afresh.

( 2 ) THE following question of law arises for consideration :"whether this Court has got any inherent power to entertain an application praying for setting aside an order made in a reference u/s. 256 of the income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the order made was palpably erroneous or had resulted in miscarriage of justice and to set aside the order if it is found to be so and to pass an order in accordance with law. "

( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow: The Income-tax Appellate tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made a reference under Section 256 (1) of the income-tax Act, 1961, referring the following question of law for the opinion of this Court:"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to deduction under Section 35b in respect of the commission of Rs. 90,851/- paid by it to the agents in India ? "the said reference was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 17-7- 1986. This Court answered the question in the affirmative and against the asses- see. Thereafter the present application has been made invoking the inherent power of this Court for reviewing the said order on the ground that the order had resulted in manifest injustice to the asses- see and that the order also suffers from a patent error of law.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the revenue has raised a preliminary objection. He submitted that the prayer made in the application amounts to seeking a review of the order made in a reference jurisdiction of this Court under Section 256 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('act' for short) and no such application was maintainable. In support of the above contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Nagpur High Court in Seth Mathuradas v. Commr. of Income Tax, (VIII l. T. R. 412. That was a case in which the nagpur High Court was considering an application for review of the judgment made by the said High Court in a reference under Section 66 of the Indian income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 256 of the Act. The Nagpur high Court held that when the High court exercised its jurisdiction under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the High Court did not operate as a civil Court and therefore the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code was not attracted and consequently the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 C P. C. was not maintainable. He also relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High court in Jose T. Kooken v. C. I. T. (No. 2) (Ker.) (117 I. T. R. 921) in which a similar view was taken by the Kerala High court. In the said decision the Kerala high Court held that the reference jurisdiction of the High Court under the Income- tax Act was a special jurisdiction and was of advisory or consultative nature and it was neither original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction and therefore provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 was not attracted and therefore a review application as against an order made by the High Court in the reference jurisdiction was not maintainable.

( 5 ) WE are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable having regard to the nature of the the jurisdiction conferred on the High court under Section 256 of the Act.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the assesses, also did not dispute that a petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C. P. C. for reviewing an order under Section 256 of the Act was not maintainable for it. s well settled, a power for review has to be expressly conferred. He, however, submitted the application was not a review petition. He submitted that the applicant was invoking the inherent power of this court. He said that this court