Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2018 (7) TMI 1728 - HC - Income TaxAdditional sum towards value of bitumen short supply - Maintainability of the review application - patent error apparent on record - Whether appellant s case confirmation of addition u/s 69A is legal and valid? - substantial question answered against the assessee - Held that - Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error apparent on record. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the review petitioner that the appellate tribunal in separate appeals filed by the review petitioner itself however for the different assessment years has taken a different view in both the appeals. It is stated that for the assessment year 1996-97 on the same set of facts it has allowed the appeal on the same date whereas for the year 1995-96 it has remanded back the matter to the assessing officer. However the question would be whether the fact that the appellate tribunal had passed another order correctly or incorrectly the same may have any effect rendering the judgment of the tribunal passed in present matter to be erroneous despite the same having been upheld in appeal by this Court? Answer has to be in negative. For the assessment year 1995-96 matter has attained finality as the Division Bench has already accepted the view of the appellate tribunal to be correct in 2009 (3) TMI 501 - PATNA HIGH COURT . The view of the same Tribunal or the same Bench of the Tribunal was correct or incorrect for a different assessment year was not the subject matter of the appeal. If one of the views of the appellate tribunal is in favour of the assessee that does not mean that the said view would be correct and the view taken in the present case was incorrect. The view formed by the revenue in the present case for the assessment year 1995-96 has been scrutinized not only by the appellate tribunal but also by the Division Bench of this Court and the same has been found to be correct. Thus in our view that cannot be held to be a patent error on the face of the record thus the same would not come to the help of the review petitioner. We could not be persuaded to reverse the finding recorded by the Division Bench for the reason that for the same assessee but for the different assessment year same Bench of tribunal has accepted their plea regarding short supply of bitumen as it is not within the knowledge as to whether that case travelled in appeal before this Court or not whereas the decision rendered by the appellate tribunal for the assessment year 1995-96 travelled up to this Court. The substantial questions were formulated and all of them have been answered against the assessee.
|