JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This order will dispose of CM No. 3657-CII of
1989 and RA No. 33 C-II of 1989 in I. T. Case No. 61 of 1981.
2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay in filing the review application is condoned.
3. The petitioner has moved this review petition for recalling the order dated August 23, 1988, passed in Income-tax Case No. 61 of 1981 whereby the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was directed to refer the question of law stated in the order. Review is sought on the ground that, in Petition No. 32 of 1981 pertaining to his brother where reference was sought on the same ground, a similar question of law was sought to be referred but the same was declined by this court.
4. Notice was issued to the Department and a preliminary objection has been raised (hat the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act is only advisory. The High Court does not exercise original, appellate or revisional jurisdiction and has no power of review. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon Addl. CIT v. Hasmat Rai Raj Pal [1988] 170 ITR 191 (All) and Jose T. Mooken v. CIT (No. 2) [1979] 117 ITR 921 (Ker). In Jose T. Mooken’s case [1979] 117 ITR 921 (Ker), it has been held thus (headnote) :
“Though it is well settled that the High Court as a ‘court’ has inherent jurisdiction to act ex debito justitiac if the circumstances of a case so demand and such inherent jurisdiction or power is inherent in the High Court because it is a court and is unrelated to and independent of the nature of its jurisdiction, in regard to the power of review, unless it is expressly conferred, the power cannot be so exercised. The power of review is not conferred on the High Court in the matter of a reference under the Income-tax Act and, in the absence of a specific conferment of power, the High Court cannot exercise that power.”
5. The preliminary objection is thus sustained. The review petition is declined.