9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2025 6. The present review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in T.A. No. 24 of 2019. 7. The serious objection has been made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the respondent/appellant Income Tax that the said order since has been passed on the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/respondent and therefore, after such concession, there cannot be a review of the order dated 11.07.2024 which is being sought for review by filing the instant review petition. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the said Tax Appeal have also been incorporated in the present review petitions which need to be referred herein as under: 10. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) / respondent herein has moved before this Court in Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 against the order dated 15.03.2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in I.T.A. No. 108/Ran/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 preferred by the respondent/review petitioner herein whereby and whereunder, the learned I.T.A.T. has allowed the said appeal and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason." 18. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: "12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 20. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 21. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgment made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph - 16.1 to 16.7 which reads as under:- "16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 024 is hereby restored. We make it clear that the parties aggrieved by the said order can always challenge the said order in accordance with law. 31. However, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has fairly submitted that the issue of retracting back from the concession is not the ground for seeking review. 32. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that since the Co-ordinate Bench has passed order on the concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the matter has been remitted before the authority to decide afresh in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, hence, this case is not coming under the fold of the power which is to be exercised under the jurisdiction of review. 33. On the basis of the discussion made herein above and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., (supra) and in the case of Rimpa Saha (supra) is of the view that no ground is available to review the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court in T.A. No. 24 of 2019. 34. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
