Court grants condonation of delay but dismisses review application for impermissible re-argument.

The court allowed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, noting reasonable reasons for the delay despite the respondent's objections. However, the court dismissed the Civil Review Application concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it found the application to be an impermissible attempt to re-argue the case rather than point out clerical or statistical errors, as required for a review. The court emphasized that review proceedings are not a substitute for an appeal and must be limited to specific grounds, leading to the dismissal of the review application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Review of the order passed in Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2010 concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 5725 of 2014) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 713 days in preferring the Civil Review Application. The court, after hearing both sides, noted the reasons for the delay, including the loss of the copy of the order and procedural issues within the appellant's department. Despite the respondent's argument that the appellant could have acted more vigilantly, the court found the reasons reasonable and condoned the delay. The application for condonation of delay was thus allowed and disposed of.

2. Review of Order in Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2010:
The Civil Review Application (No. 66 of 2013) was filed against the order dated 25th July 2012 in Tax Appeal No. 38 of 2010. The appellant contended that the Division Bench's decision, particularly in paragraph 23, was not in accordance with Section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant cited a Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in Raj Kumar Singal Vs. Union of India to support their argument that interest should be levied on the assessed income per the amended Act.

The court observed that the review application seemed to be an appeal in disguise. The Division Bench had already addressed the issue of whether interest should be levied on the assessed income or the income declared in the return and decided against the appellant's proposition. The court emphasized that the review application did not point out any clerical or statistical error but rather an error on the merits, which is not a ground for review.

The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, and Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, to underline the limited scope of review. The judgments consistently held that review proceedings are not a substitute for an appeal and must be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or other analogous grounds, not errors on merits.

The court concluded that the appellant's arguments did not meet the criteria for review as established by precedent. Consequently, the Civil Review Application was dismissed for lack of substance.

---