Review jurisdiction cannot reopen a concluded decision on fresh arguments or later authorities where no error apparent is shown.

A review application filed five days late, without any explanation or request for condonation, was liable to rejection at the threshold. The Court further held that review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent and cannot be used to reopen a concluded decision merely because fresh arguments or additional authorities are later discovered. The passages relied upon did not displace the earlier interpretation of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on depreciation for second-hand assets, and the reference to the definition of written down value in section 43(6)(a) likewise furnished no ground for review. The application was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application, filed beyond time and founded on grounds already considered or capable of being urged earlier, disclosed any basis for reopening the concluded decision.

Analysis: The review was found to be delayed by five days without any explanation or request for condonation, making it liable to rejection at the threshold. Independently, the Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be used to seek a rehearing merely because fresh arguments or additional authorities have since been discovered. The passages relied upon did not dislodge the earlier reasoning on the construction of section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under which the phraseology relevant to depreciation on second-hand assets had already been considered in favour of the assessee. The reference to the definition of written down value in section 43(6)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 also did not supply any ground for review.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked to secure a rehearing on the basis of arguments or authorities that could have been advanced earlier, especially where no new statutory provision or binding authority overlooked by the Court is shown.

---