TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch resulted in an income having escaped assessment. In the instant case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued by the Assessing Officer after an investigation was carried out and after going through the income tax return and other related documents of the petitioner and after forming reason to believe that the petitioner did not truly and fully disclose all the material facts, because of which income has escaped assessment. Thus the reassessment has been ordered upon discovery of apprehended untruthfulness of facts previously disclosed, which came to light after an investigation and, therefore, the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal [ 1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] does not support the petitioner and as per the law laid down in Srikrishna [ 1996 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the reassessment proceedings have rightly been initiated. The judgment passed by this Court has also been sought to be reviewed on the ground that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the judgments of Aventis Pharma Ltd. Versus ACIT [ 2010 (3) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 194 C and some are deducting it under Section 194 H and, therefore, these receipts are not reflecting in its income. However, the petitioner has received payments under Sections 194 I and 194 J also, but it did not show the above receipts and gave no explanation for the same. It did not produce any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred by it on behalf of the principal companies. On the basis of the aforesaid reasons, the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that the petitioner has not truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment thereby necessitating reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. 4. While deciding the Writ Petition, this Court held that the Assessing Officer has recorded his reason to believe that the petitioner had received payments under Sections 194 I and 194 J also, but it had not shown the said receipts in his Profit and Loss account and had not given any explanation for the same. The petitioner had not disclosed the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed by it and the actual amount received by it towards reimbursement. It had not submitted the details of expenses incurred by it for verification during the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has further contended that the judgment in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) is case specific and it cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner and the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) supports the petitioner's contention that to initiate reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material before him before proceeding to initiate the reimbursement under Section 147 of the Act; contended that the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Srikrishna (Pvt.) Ltd. versus I.T.O., (1996) 9 SCC 534 relied upon by this Court required that the assessee is under obligation to disclose the material facts and such disclosure should be full and true and the petitioner has made true and full disclosure of all material facts and that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. 7. Before proceeding to examine the submissions of the learned Counsel for the review-petitioner, it would be appropriate to have a look at the scope of review. It is settled law that review cannot be treated as an appeal and a re-hearing of the matter is not allowed in the name of a revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. *** 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: The law on the subject-exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. 17. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17-2-2017. Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17-2-2017. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Now we proceed to examine the grounds taken by the petitioner for seeking a review of the judgment passed by this Court so as to ascertain whether this judgment sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said receipts in his Profit and Loss account and had not given any explanation for the same and entertaining this ground raised by the petitioner for review would necessarily require a re-hearing of the Writ Petition as this ground does not relate to an error, which can be said to be apparent on the face of the record. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, there is no mention of non-disclosure of the amount of reimbursement expenses and, therefore, this question does not arise at all and that the figure of Rs.5,23,84,737/- alleged to have been received through commission and Rs.36,13,775/- alleged to be TDS do not appear in 26 AS and the same are imaginary figures. We have found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer contain a mention that during the assessment proceedings, the petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancy and it stated that at the time of reimbursing the expenses, some of its principals are deducting TDS under Section 194 C and some are deducting it under Section 194 H and, therefore, these receipts are not reflecting in its income. It further records that the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to how the aforesaid ratio is based on any peculiar facts and it would not apply to the present case. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) is case specific and it cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. 17. So far as the submission that the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) supports the petitioner's contention that to initiate reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material before him before proceeding to initiate the reimbursement under Section 147 of the Act, we may state that in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court had held that the reassessment proceedings may be started either because of some fresh fact come into light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the fact previously disclosed comes into light which intends to expose untruthfulness of those facts . 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Srikrishna (Pvt.) Ltd. versus I.T.O. , (1996) 9 SCC 534 reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
