ORDER
The Court :
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this Court :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in recalling its earlier appellate order for a fresh decision on merits which action amounts to a review of the appellate order ?”
2. It appears that the Tribunal vide order dt. 18th April, 1990 accepted the appeal of the Department with regard to expenses which had been incurred on the foreign trip of the wife of the assessed. These expenses had been incurred by the company and were added to the assessed’s income by way of perquisites. One of the contentions which was raised on behalf of the assessed was that his wife was a qualified person and had gone abroad for the purpose of the business of the company of which the assessed was an employee. In this regard a letter dt. 17th March, 1986 was sought to be placed before the Tribunal by the representative of the assessed but the Tribunal refused to look into this letter by observing that the same was neither before the ITO nor before the CIT(A).
3. The assessed thereafter filed an application alleging that there has been a mistake apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch, as the said letter of 17th March, 1986 had been filed before the CIT(A). In this regard the attention of the Tribunal was invited to the certificate which was appended to the index of paper book which certificate stated that the documents in the paper book including the letter dt. 17th March, 1986 had been placed before the CIT (A). The Tribunal vide impugned order of 19th June, 1991 observed, while allowing the application, that the Departmental Representative could not controvert the plea of the assessed and could not state that the claim of the assessed that the said letter was before the CIT (A) was false. The Tribunal thereupon came to the conclusion that as there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record the order dt. 18th April, 1990 should be recalled and the appeal be heard afresh on merits.
4. In our opinion, the said conclusion of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. As a fact it has been found that the letter dt. 17th March, 1986 was wrongly ignored by the Tribunal when it had passed the original order of 18th April, 1990 as it was under a misconception that the said letter had not been filed by the assessed either before the ITO or the CIT(A). When as a fact it came to the conclusion that the said letter had been filed before the CIT(A), therefore, obviously the Tribunal had committed a factual mistake in observing that the said letter could not be taken into consideration. In view of this finding of fact no question of law arises. Dismissed.
5. No order as to costs.