AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Tribunal, Bombay Bench ''E'', Bombay dt, 16-3-1996, by which the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application of the petitioners praying for recalling the order passed in one miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner earlier for rectification of the order of the Tribunal dt. 28th April, 1994,
We have heard Mr. Dastur, learned counsel for the petitioners. The uncontroverted factual position in this case is that the appeal of the petitioners was decided by the Tribunal by order dt. 28-4-1994. Against the said order, the petitioners filed application for reference under s. 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") before the Tribunal. That was also rejected by the Tribunal by order dt. 29-1-1996, Further application of the petitioners under s. 256(2) of the Act was also rejected by this Court on 10-10-1996. The petitioners filed SLP before the Supreme Court against the order of this Court rejecting the application under s. 256(2) of the Act. That too was rejected by the Supreme Court on 23-7-1997. The order of the Tribunal dt. 28-4-1994, thus, attained finality.
It appears that the petitioners also took out some miscellaneous application for rectification of the very same order of the Tribunal dt. 28th April, 1994. Those applications were rejected by the Tribunal by its order dt. 11-8-1994. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed an application for reference under s. 256(l) of the Act seeking reference of a question "whether the Tribunal was justified in not making the order setting aside the ex parte order dt. 11-8-1995?". This reference application was also rejected by the Tribunal. No further application was filed under s. 256(2) of the Act to this Court. Thus the order dt. l1-8- 1994 refusing to recall the order also attained finality, The petitioners now seek to challenge the very same order by this writ petition.
It is clear from the facts above that this writ petition is misconceived. The challenge to the order of the Tribunal having been turned down by the Supreme Court by the rejection of the Special Leave Petition, that order has become final. Despite that, the petitioners tried to get that very order set aside by the Tribunal by taking out another round of litigation before the Tribunal by filing miscellaneous petitions. That attempt also was foiled by Tribunal by rejecting the applications and also the reference application taken out by the petitioners against the same. The petitioners did not proceed further in the matter and, in our opinion, rightly so. By this writ petition, the petitioners now seek to have a third round to get the order of the Tribunal set aside which has attained finality by rejection of SLP by the Supreme Court and that too, after two and half years of the order of the Tribunal on the miscellaneous application and rejection of the reference application against the same by the Tribunal. This application, in our opinion, is only misconceived and gross mistake of the process of the Court.
This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage itself.