2014 (4) TMI 632 - HC - Income Tax

Court rejects review application emphasizing difference between review and appeal

M/s. Goldmine Investments Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Court dismissed the review application in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008, finding no error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review. Emphasizing ... Application for seeking review – Error apparent on the face of record - Incorrect method of computation of profits adopted - Held that:- Though the assessee has not preferred any appeal as against the order dated 15.10.2004, the revenue has preferred an appeal, which is still pending - it was pointed out by the Commissioner that the adoption of figure in the denominator could only give rise to anomalous situation, which has been elaborately dealt with by the Commissioner in the order - there is no ambiguity about the gross profit for the assessement year 1998-1999 - there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the Judgment passed warranting exercise of review jurisdiction - Relying upon Inderchand Jain (Dead) vs. Motilal (Dead) [2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT] - review is not an appeal in disguise - The contention raised by the applicant would in effect amount to re-arguing the entire matter - The error to be pointed out in a review application should be manifest and apparent on the face of the record and cannot be fished out by the manner of thorough re-appreciation of materials placed - The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order passed by the CIT (A) was not taken into consideration also deserves to be rejected – thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to exercise the review jurisdiction – Decided against Assessee. Issues:Review of Judgment dated 29.11.2013 in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008Detailed Analysis:1. Computation of Profits for Assessment Year 1996-97 and Succeeding Years:The applicant sought a review of the judgment, arguing that the Tribunal incorrectly assumed that the method of profit computation for the assessment year 1996-97 was adopted for succeeding years, which was not the case. The applicant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had accepted the computation of profits for the assessment year 1998-99, which had attained finality. The applicant emphasized that the order dated 25.04.2007, which was not considered, should have been vital in the review process.2. Scope of Review and Legal Principles:The Court referred to legal principles outlined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the scope of a review application. The Court highlighted that a review should only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the order, leading to a failure of justice. The power of review cannot be used to substitute a view or sit in appeal over its own decision. The Court emphasized that a review cannot be sought based on a mere error in law or to re-argue the entire matter.3. Contention Regarding Correct Figure for Denominator in Profit Calculation:The applicant argued that the correct figure for the denominator in calculating gross profits should be Rs. 16,80,53,026/- instead of Rs. 29,35,03,026/-. However, the Court found this contention to be misconceived after examining the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order, which clarified the correct method of profit allocation over the assessment years.4. Error in Disallowance of Proportionate Interest:The applicant highlighted an alleged error in paragraph No.92 of the Judgment regarding the disallowance of proportionate interest. The Court noted that no grounds were presented by the applicant to dislodge the Tribunal's finding, leading to the confirmation of the Tribunal's decision by the Court.5. Conclusion on Review Application:After thorough examination, the Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment passed in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008, warranting a review. The Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the matter. The Court dismissed the review application, emphasizing that the alleged errors were not manifest or apparent on the face of the record, thus rejecting the applicant's contentions.