TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner and after forming reason to believe that the petitioner did not truly and fully disclose all the material facts, because of which income amounting to Rs.1,07,24,386/- 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. This Court is not obliged to refer to each and every judgment forming part of a compilation of judgments submitted after conclusion of oral submissions, which judgments were not placed before the Court during oral submissions. Moreover, while deciding the writ petition, we have referred to and relied upon the relevant case laws and it is not been submitted by the petitioner that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer and it came to light upon investigation conducted subsequent to passing of the assessment order, which would amount to fresh tangible material giving rise to reason to believe that certain income has escaped assessment necessitating initiation of reassessment proceedings. 4. After examining the reasons, this Court had held that the A.O. had recorded his reasons to believe that the petitioner had received payments under Section 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 assessment proceedings. It did not produce any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred on behalf of the Principal Companies. Thus the petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of all the material facts which resulted in an income of Rs. 1,07,24,386/- having escaped assessment. 5. Relying upon the judgments in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. I.T.O. (1999) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ooking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137, wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra , (2019) 20 SCC 753, the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier decisions on the point and summarized the law on the subject in the following manner: - 15.1. In Inderchand Jain ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 15.3. Similarly, in Parsion Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 the principles were summarised as under: (SCC p. 719, para 9) 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . 16. On the other hand, reliance was placed by the respondent on the decision in BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club(2005) 4 SCC 741 to submit that exercise in review would be justified if there be misconception of fact or law. Para 90 of the said decision was to the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been explained through its letter dated 12-02-2015. 12. Whether or not certain receipts are correctly reflected in 26 AS and the Profit and Loss Account of the petitioner, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or while reviewing the judgment passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Moreover, by raising the aforesaid question, the petitioner is seeking a re-hearing of the Writ Petition, which is not permissible in the name review of the judgment. Such a question can only be decided by the Assessing Authority during re-assessment proceedings, and the petitioner will have full opportunity to place its case during reassessment proceedings and it is not the case that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will result any miscarriage of justice being caused to the petitioner. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has next contended that during the assessment proceedings, the petitioner had provided the copy of the ledger account of refundable amount received / to be received with a copy of debit note issued to the Principal Companies and it had disclosed all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 147 of the Act. 16. 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 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. 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. In the present case, the reassessment has been ordered because the A.O. has recorded his reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
