Dipak Misra, C.J.

Expressing doubt with regard to the precedential value of the decisions rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax v. K.L. Bhatia, [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi), Deeksha Suri v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and others, [1998] 232 ITR 395 (Delhi) : 1998 (44) DRJ 120 (DB), Karan and Co. v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, [2002] 253 ITR 131 (Delhi) : 2002 (63) DRJ 170(DB), J.N. Sahni v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and others, (2002) 257 ITR 16 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vichtra Construction P. Ltd., [2004] 269 ITR 371 (Delhi), Om Prakash Bhola v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2005] 273 ITR 291 (Delhi), Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 132 (Delhi), Ras Bihari Bansal v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another, [2007] 293 ITR 365 (Delhi) and Perfetti Van Melle India P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2008] 296 ITR 595 (Delhi) wherein the view has been expressed that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the tribunal') has no power to recall an order in exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity `the Act'), in view of the enunciation of law in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC) : 2008 (100) DRJ 513[SC], a Division Bench felt that the said decisions required reconsideration by a larger Bench. Thus, these writ petitions have been placed before us only for the purpose of consideration of the issue whether the tribunal has the power to recall the order in entirety under Section 254(2) of the Act. Be it noted, apart from the said issue, nothing need be adverted to by this Bench inasmuch as all other ancillary issues relating to restriction or constriction of exercise of that power are to be adverted to by the Division Bench in case circumstances so warrant. Thus, we shall dwell upon and delve into the aforesaid singular issue.

2. The factual score which is required to be depicted for the purpose of answering the question that has arisen in this batch of writ petitions, in brief, is that the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22nd January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench `F' whereby the tribunal in respect of the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 has allowed the applications filed by the revenue being MA Nos. 573 to 578/Del/2009 in ITA Nos. 1366 to 1371/Del/2009 and recalled the composite order passed by it on 17th June, 2009.

3. Mr. R.M. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, the tribunal has no power to recall an order in exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act and, secondly, assuming the tribunal has the power to recall, the facts and circumstances of the case at hand do not warrant a recall. We have already indicated that only the first issue is required to be delved into by this Bench and hence, we shall confine ourselves to the said aspect. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pressed into service the decisions rendered in K.L. Bhatia (supra), Deeksha Suri (supra), Karan and Co. (supra), J.N. Sahni (supra), Vichtra Construction P. Ltd., (supra), Om Prakash Bhola (supra), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., (supra), Ras Bihari Bansal (supra) and Perfetti Van Melle India P. Ltd. (supra) in support of his submission. It is also contended by Mr. Mehta that the decision rendered in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra) by the Apex Court is not an authority for the proposition that the tribunal has the power of total recall inasmuch as the said issue was neither raised nor argued at the Bar. To bolster the said facet of submission, he has commended us to the decision rendered in Y.S.C. Babu and A.V.S. Raghavan v. Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank and others, [2002] 253 ITR 1 (AP). The learned counsel has also submitted that the said decision has been distinguishe