1977 (1) TMI 12 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for review and reconsideration of an order passed by the High Court in an Income-tax Reference case.
2. Interpretation of the term "actual delivery" in Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Scope of reconsideration or re-examination by courts under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Valid grounds for review under Order 47, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Belated application for review.
6. Applicability of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court on review applications.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to an application for review of an order passed by the High Court in an Income-tax Reference case. The application sought reconsideration based on subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court impacting the interpretation of certain legal provisions.

2. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "actual delivery" in Explanation 2 to section 24(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court clarified that "actual delivery" refers to real, not notional delivery, and the definition of speculative transactions under the Contract Act was not relevant for this purpose.

3. The court examined the scope of reconsideration or re-examination by courts under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was made under this section, but it must be on grounds not prohibited by other provisions of the Code.

4. The judgment highlighted valid grounds for review under Order 47, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that a review must be based on errors or mistakes existing at the time of the judgment, and subsequent decisions or alterations in the law do not warrant a review.

5. The court addressed the issue of the belated application for review. The application was deemed untimely, considering the significant delay between the delivery of the judgment and the filing of the review application.

6. Furthermore, the judgment discussed the applicability of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court on review applications. It emphasized that a subsequent decision by the court or a change in the law post-judgment is not a valid ground for review under Order 47.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for review, stating that the grounds presented were not maintainable, and the application was untimely. The judgment reiterated the limitations on review applications and emphasized the importance of timely and valid grounds for seeking a review.