TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts 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, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - Civil Review No.102 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR For the Petitioner: Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. K.C.K. Sinha, Advocates For the Respondent: Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Alok Kumar, Jr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of bitumen short supply. The assessee also filed cross-objection. The Tribunal on appraisal of the materials available on record came to the following conclusions:- In pursuance of the said show-cause notice, the assessee filed photocopies of delivery challans, claiming that it had made full delivery to the respective divisions. While adjudicating the appeal In ITA No.358(Patna)2000 decided on 11.012002, we had an opportunity to appreciate the facts in this regard. We formed an opinion that the photocopies of the delivery challan were false and fabricated. We further came to the conclusion that the admission made by various junior engineers, was clarified and the explanation made by them was that bitumen supplied was short and the del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 1,04,71,720 u/s 69A on account of short supply of bitumen in the hands of the appellant who is merely a transporter of the goods? The questions were answered in favour of revenue and against the appellant/review petitioner. Now, the present application has been filed for review of the judgment passed in appeal. First of all, several decisions were cited by Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the review petitioner regarding ambit and scope of the review of the appellate order under the Income Tax Act. For example Patel Narshi Thakershi and others V. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1273], Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar V. State of Maharashtra and another and other analogous matters [AIR 1967 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutes 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. Similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in yet another decision rendered in Sasi (Dead) through legal representatives Versus Aravindakshan Nair and Others [2017(4) Supreme Court Cases 692]. It has been held, referring the earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court, that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. Almost similar view has been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in other decisions also. The Division Bench has laid down its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt? 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 M.A. No.214 of 2002. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
