9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in ITR No.464/ALLd./05 for the block period w.e.f. 01.04.1996 to 04.09.2002 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with certain observations. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT-ASSESSEE 3. Shri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/assessee submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, this Court has neither answered the substantial question of law, on which, the appeal had been admitted on 15.05.2012 nor has it dealt with significant factual aspects of the matter. Submission is that the assessee had paid advance tax of Rs. 5,71,000/- on 14.03.2002, a search operation was conducted by the Department on 04.09.2002 wherein account books and other documents of the applicant were seized. According to him, 31.10.2002 was the due date for filing return for the Financial Year 2001-2002, (Assessment Year 2002-2003), however, since the account books were seized by the Department prior to the said due date and the seized materials and books were received from the Department on 05.07.2004, the applicant filed return under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the seized material and obtain photocopy thereof. The assessment order further records that inspection and photocopying work was carried out w.e.f. 31.12.2003 to 28.05.2004, print outs of CPUs and floppies seized were carried out in the presence of the assessee's authorized representative and two witnesses, a notice under Section 158-BC was issued to the assessee on 08.06.2004 requiring him to prepare a true and correct return of his total income in the prescribed form and to deliver the same in the Department's Office within twenty days; such notice was served upon assessee on 09.06.2004; the assessee requested for extension of time for filing return, which extension was granted to him upto 45th day i.e. 24.07.2004, however, no return was filed by that date. Shri Agrawal further submits that the assessee was not co-operative in the proceedings and had taken much time in inspection and photocopying work, which continued for about five months. By referring to the computations made by the Assessing officer in his order dated 30.09.2004, it is urged that in the Assessment Year 2002-2003, total income of the assessee was shown as Rs. 1,08,03,703/-, his disclosed income being Rs. 53,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that challenging the subsequent order dated 25.08.2014, the applicant-assessee has filed Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015 (connected with this review application) and, therefore, not only the order dated 16.05.2014 is required to be reviewed and set aside but also the consequential order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the connected appeal be also allowed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 6. First of all, we would like to narrate the scope of review application as per Order XVLII Rule 1 of the Code. The said provision finds place in procedural part of the Code and as far as substantive part thereof is concerned, Section 114 is the relevant provision. Even if we accept the submission of Shri Goyal that appeal against order of the Appellate Court is entertained by Hon'ble Supreme Court only after special leave is granted by the Apex Court and, hence, as a matter of course, no statutory appeal is provided under the Act before the Supreme Court, irrespective of maintainability of review application for any reason whatsoever, including non-availability of remedy of statutory appeal, such application has to be considered as per the contours of Rule 1 of Order XVLII of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. In Pancham Lal Pandey (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the provision of review is not to scrutinize the correctness of the decision rendered rather to correct the error, if any, which is visible on the face of the order / record without going into as to whether there is a possibility of another opinion different from the one expressed. In M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. (supra), reliance was placed by this Court on Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded that review power and appellate power are inherently distinct. While the appellate power enables the courts to rectify all manners of errors in the judgment or order under challenge, review power does not. In Parsion Devi v Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court espoused that the power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908 does not allow for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186), the Hon'ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or apparent on the face of the record. It was further held that a review petition cannot be allowed to be an "appeal in disguise". 13. As far as judgments cited on behalf of the applicant i.e. Rajender Singh (supra) and Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra) are concerned, though it is true that the Courts should not hesitate to review their own order when interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that this can be done only when there exists an error on the face of record and the words "sufficient reason" used in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include misconception of fact or law of a Court. We have to consider the ratio laid down in the authorities cited at the Bar in the given facts of the present case and we find that this Court, while deciding the Income Tax Appeal No.422 of 2006 by order dated 16.05.2014, though quoted a substantial question of law framed on 15.05.2012, but refrained to answer the same for the reason that, after setting aside the order under challenge before it, had remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. ITR U/S 139, WHETHER NON-EST 14. Insofar as the observation of this cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st" and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal be also set aside on this ground alone, we are of the view that the present review application and the connected appeal are to be decided in the light of scope of two different and independent proceedings, i.e. one being an application for review and the other being a statutory appeal and, hence, we would do accordingly. CONCLUSION 17. While applying the ratio laid down in the aforementioned authorities on the scope of review, we find that not only the block assessment order dated 30.09.2004 but also the assessment order 29.03.2006 and orders passed subsequently i.e. on 16.08.2005 and 26.06.2006 contained discussion of material that was available before the Authorities/Tribunal. Merely because this Court interpreted the record of proceedings in one way or the other, we do not find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify exercise of our review jurisdiction. At the same time, the effect of order dated 16.05.2014 on the proceedings culminating into passing of the subsequent order dated 25.08.2014 after remand, has to be seen while deciding the connected Income Tax Appeal No.86 of 2015 (Umang Aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
