The Tribunal cannot recall its entire order and rewrite its judgment under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Total recall of the Tribunal's own order is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

( 1 ) IN this writ application I have called for detailed arguments even before filing of affidavits. This has been done to expedite the matter. The reason why such expedition is needed is this. The order under challenge is an order of the Tribunal recalling its earlier order passed in appeal. The date of the recall is June 1, 1999, and the date of the earlier order is April 22, 1998.

( 2 ) BY that earlier order, the Tribunal had set aside a block assessment made under Chapter XIVB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By reason of the order of recall, the set aside block assessment revives. If instead of hearing the writ, a stay is granted, it will completely freeze assessment proceeding until further steps are taken. This is not a desirable course, as the matter, if the details are grasped, is really very short, usual and simple.

( 3 ) AFTER the Tribunal passed its order in April, 1998, an Explanation was added to the Income-tax Act in Chapter XIVB to Section 158ba and under that Explanation regular assessments for all years in the block period are also required to be made.

( 4 ) IN regard to the regular assessment for one particular assessment year in the block period of the same assessee, an earlier writ was filed and I have delivered a judgment in that matter, since reported in Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT.

( 5 ) IN that judgment I opined that there will be a block assessment for all the years in question but in addition thereto there will be also regular assessments for the separate years included in the block period. If any regular assessment remains incomplete at the time of search and seizure, then ordinarily that will be subsequently finalised after the block assessment is over.

( 6 ) A miscellaneous application under Section 254 (2) had been made in the Tribunal by the Revenue subsequent to the introduction of the amendment but prior to the delivery of my judgment in the earlier matter.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal's order of April, 1998, in so far as the ordering portion is concerned, is in perfect accordance with the added Explanation and the earlier judgment delivered by me. However, in the body of the Tribunal's order, it was observed by the Tribunal that the block assessment will be one assessment and there would not be separate assessments for the individual assessment years included in the block period.

( 8 ) IN the impugned order of June 1, 1999, the Tribunal has observed that that remark of the Tribunal is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. On the basis of that the Tribunal has set aside the entire order passed on April 22, 1998.

( 9 ) THE result of this is that because of the setting aside of the entire order, the block assessment which had been set aside, has been revived ; the direction given in my earlier judgment that the regular assessment will be made within six months of completion of the block assessment is also rendered inoperative because my judgment assumed a future block assessment to be made in accordance with the Tribunal's views given in its order dated April 22, 1998.

( 10 ) MR. Bajoria, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 254 (2), the Tribunal can make amendments or rectifications which are obvious and which do not involve debate or dispute. He referred to the case of CIT v. Swadeshi Commercial Co. Ltd. also the case of CITv. E. Sefton and Co. (P.) Ltd. He also said that the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254 (2) do not envisage a total recall of the order and obliteration to it. It would not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal acting under this sub-section to recall its earlier order totally and then and thereafter again enter into long drawn arguments for the purpose of rewriting its judgment.

( 11 ) IN this regard, Mr. Bajoria gave me two Division Bench decisions of the Orissa High Court in CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 590 and CIT v. ITAT [1992] 196 ITR 683 and a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. IT