TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had made out grounds for review on the basis of discovery of new and important matter or evidence under Order 47, Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within the applicant's knowledge despite due diligence, or another sufficient reason of the same kind. The alleged additional documents were not shown to be unavailable despite due diligence, nor were they shown to be nearly conclusive or of such a character that they would probably alter the result. A review cannot be used to supplement the evidence or reopen the litigation by introducing materials that might merely have some effect on the outcome.
Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish any permissible ground for review, and the review petition was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and holds that a belated attempt to introduce additional evidence, without strict proof of due diligence and materiality, does not justify reopening a concluded decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an apparent error or considering genuinely new and important material that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier and that is of such significance as to justify interference with the concluded decision.
TaxTMI 
