Review jurisdiction is limited to patent error, and a settled section 179 issue cannot be reopened beyond remand terms.

Review under writ jurisdiction is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new matter, or other recognised grounds, and a mere possible error of law or fact is insufficient. The Court found no reviewable error in the alleged non-consideration of written notes, a cited decision, or later factual assertions. It also held that the earlier binding order between the parties had conclusively decided that the amendment to section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not retrospective and could not be reopened within the limited remand. The review application therefore failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any ground justifying review of the earlier judgment; (ii) Whether the issue concerning the retrospectivity and application of section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be reopened in view of the earlier binding order between the parties and the limited scope of remand.

Issue (i): Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any ground justifying review of the earlier judgment.

Analysis: Review under the writ jurisdiction is controlled by the principles underlying section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and lies only for a patent error, discovery of new matter, or other sufficient reason. A mere possible error of law or fact is insufficient. The alleged absence of consideration of written notes, the asserted non-consideration of a cited decision, and the factual assertions sought to be added after the order did not establish any patent error apparent from the record.

Conclusion: The review application disclosed no ground warranting interference and failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the issue concerning the retrospectivity and application of section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be reopened in view of the earlier binding order between the parties and the limited scope of remand.

Analysis: The earlier order between the parties had conclusively held that the amendment to section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not retrospective and that the amended provision could not be invoked unless the company had gone into liquidation at the relevant time. That determination had attained finality and operated inter se the parties. The later proceedings were confined to the remand direction and could not travel beyond it. On that basis, the question could not be reopened in review, and the contrary contention did not show any mistake in law or fact.

Conclusion: The issue was concluded by the earlier binding order and could not be re-agitated in review.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the earlier decision was held to be outside the permissible scope of review, and the application failed in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only for a patent error apparent on the face of the record or other recognised review grounds, and an issue conclusively determined by an earlier binding order between the same parties cannot be reopened in review beyond the terms of the remand.

---