 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Article 226 6.19. Similarly, we do not think it would be advisable to adopt the alternative of leaving it open to the party aggrieved by the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to move the High Court under Article 226 because the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, no doubt, more limited than its appellate jurisdiction. While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court would be inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal only if it is shown that it discloses an error apparent on the face of the record. It is well-known that this requirement limits the jurisdiction of the Court and may not always enable the citizen aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to raise even a substantial question of law before the High Court against the said order.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back