Per Mansoor, J.;— 1. There is a common question of law involved in these review petitions, so are taken up and disposed of together by this common order. 2. Petitioners, feeling aggrieved of the orders passed by Income Tax Tribunal, filed appeals along with limitation petitions before this Court. After examining the limitation petitions, this Court, vide orders dated 1st May, 2010, dismissed the limitation petitions bearing Nos. 105/2010,106/2010 & 107/2010. While deciding the limitation petitions, this Court held that the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') at the relevant point of time did not contain any provision providing for condoning the delays caused in filing the appeals. Feeling aggrieved of the said orders passed by this Court in the limitation petitions, the petitioners by these petitions seek review of the said orders. 3. The moot question that arises for consideration is 'whether remedy of review is available to the petitioners'? The Act nowhere provides for remedy of review. The remedy of review is a creature of statute, thus is a statutory remedy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court has inherent powers to rectify a mistake which is apparent on the face of the record. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, reported in (2007) 12 SCC 596 . It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 13 of the judgment herein. It reads thus: "13. "Rule of precedent" is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the court or tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under Section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record. In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers under Section 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the coordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material which was already on record. The Tribunal has acknowledged its mistake, it has accordingly rectified its order. In our view, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. We are not going by the doctrine or concept of inherent power. We are simply proceeding on the basis that if prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake, which had been done in the present case." 5. It is axiomatic from a bare reading of the aforesaid passage of the judgment that if a wrong has been committed by mistake, that can be rectified and that has nothing to do with the power of review. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case, thus Court had not exercised the power of review, but only rectified the mistake that had crept in the order, in terms of the provisions applicable. In the case in hand, the issue involved is as to 'whether remedy of review is available to the petitioner'? As discussed hereinabove, the remedy of review is not provided by the Act. Once that be so, it follows that this remedy is neither available nor can be invoked. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Nar-ichania & ors, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held that power of review can be exercised when such remedy is contained in the Act. If the statute/rules do not permit such remedy, review petition is not maintainable. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraphs 12 to 14 of the said judgment herein, which read as under: "12. It is settled legal proposition that that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. If the statute/rules do not permit such remedy, review petition is not maintainable. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraphs 12 to 14 of the said judgment herein, which read as under: "12. It is settled legal proposition that that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh). 13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsighji, Major Chandra Bhan Singhb. Latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyala, State of Orissa v. Commr. of Land Records and Settlement and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarized to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible." 6. The issue again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case captioned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 750 and it was held that review is a creature of the statute and that in absence of any statutory provision for review, exercise of power of review is not permissible. Paragraph 17 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "17. Both the aforesaid two decisions which were rendered while considering taxation laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph 17 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "17. Both the aforesaid two decisions which were rendered while considering taxation laws are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also now an established proposition of law that review is a creature of the statute and such an order of review could be passed only when an express power of review is provided in the stature. In the absence of any statutory provisions for review, exercise of power of review under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible. In coming to the said conclusion we are fortified by the decision of this Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania." 7. Viewed thus, we are of the considered view that the remedy of review is not provided by the statute. Accordingly, these review petitions merit dismissal, being not maintainable. Dismissed as such.