Review jurisdiction limited to patent error; court refused to reopen additions, monetary limit, or limitation issues.

Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits or reopen issues already considered. The court found no ground to review the earlier judgment on the alleged improper additions or disallowance because the relevant law and facts had been considered and the questions had been answered in favour of the Revenue. It also declined review on monetary limit and limitation, as those contentions had not been raised earlier before the hearing or statutory authorities. The review petition was dismissed and the earlier decision left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the judgment warranted review on the ground of alleged improper additions or disallowance; (ii) Whether the judgment warranted review on the grounds of monetary limit and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the judgment warranted review on the ground of alleged improper additions or disallowance.

Analysis: Review lies only for correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-hearing the matter. The earlier judgment had considered the relevant aspects and the law on the subject while answering the questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out; the challenge on additions or disallowance failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the judgment warranted review on the grounds of monetary limit and limitation.

Analysis: The monetary-limit contention had not been raised at the time of hearing, and the limitation issue had not been agitated before the statutory authorities. In that situation, no basis existed to reopen the judgment in review.

Conclusion: No review was permissible on the grounds of monetary limit or limitation.

Final Conclusion: The review petition was found to be devoid of merit and stood dismissed, leaving the earlier decision undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen issues not raised earlier or to seek a rehearing on the merits.

---