2019 (1) TMI 356 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses review petition in Income Tax Appeal, emphasizes limited scope of review.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Shri Omprakash DDhanwani

The court determined that no substantial question of law arose in the Income Tax Appeal and advised the petitioner to approach the apex Court if they ... Review petition - Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 68 - Held that:- As dealing with the scope of interference and limitation of review in the case of Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs, [2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT] held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. See S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] Thus, this court does not find any reason to review the order. Issues Involved:1. Substantial question of law in Income Tax Appeal.2. Scope and grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.3. Error apparent on the face of the record.4. Re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of the case.5. Application of principles from previous judgments by the Apex Court.Detailed Analysis:1. Substantial Question of Law in Income Tax Appeal:The court determined that no substantial question of law arose in the Income Tax Appeal. The matter was decided on its merits, and the petitioner was advised to approach the apex Court if they believed the judgment was erroneous.2. Scope and Grounds for Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC:The court referenced the Apex Court's decision in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank, which clarified that Section 114 CPC allows for review on grounds of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The parameters for review are prescribed in Order 47 CPC, which does not permit rehearing of the dispute merely because a party failed to highlight all aspects of the case or argue more forcefully.3. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:The court cited multiple judgments, including State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta, which stated that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination. The court found no such error in the present case, indicating that the petitioner was challenging the order under the guise of review without pointing out any clear error.4. Re-appreciation of Evidence and Rehearing of the Case:The court referred to Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal, emphasizing that review proceedings are not an appeal and should be confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The court cannot re-appreciate evidence or rehear the case unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner's request for review was seen as an attempt to reargue the case, which is not permissible.5. Application of Principles from Previous Judgments by the Apex Court:The court applied principles from several Apex Court judgments, including S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, which stated that an error must be apparent and not require further investigation. The court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated any such error, and the judgment was made on merits.Conclusion:Based on the above analysis, the court found no reason to review the order dated 14.9.2018 in I.T.A. No.142/2016. The review petition was dismissed, as there was no error apparent on the face of the record, and no case for interference was made out.