ITR filing deadline extended when account books seized before due date under Section 139

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur Versus Shri Umang Agarwal, Allahabad

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur Versus Shri Umang Agarwal, Allahabad - 2025:AHC:43600 - DB 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issues considered in this judgment revolve around the review application filed by the assessee seeking to overturn the High Court's previous order dated 16.05.2014. The core legal questions include:

• Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the High Court's previous judgment that justified a review.
• Whether the Income Tax Return (ITR) filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act was correctly deemed "non-est" by the High Court in its earlier judgment.
• Whether the non-answering of a substantial question of law by the High Court in its previous judgment could be a ground for review.
• The scope and applicability of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Scope of Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

The legal framework for review is governed by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows for review on the discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue or rehear the case. The Court cited several precedents, including S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and Pancham Lal Pandey vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra, to reinforce that review is limited to correcting apparent errors and not substituting views.

Interpretation of "Non-Est" ITR

The Court analyzed whether the previous judgment's characterization of the ITR filed under Section 139 as "non-est" constituted an error. It concluded that the "non-est" observation was not the ratio decidendi of the earlier judgment but rather a passing remark or obiter dictum. Therefore, it did not warrant a review as it was not a decisive conclusion affecting the remand to the Appellate Tribunal.

Non-Answering of Substantial Question of Law

The Court considered whether the failure to answer the substantial question of law in the previous judgment could justify a review. It determined that the remand to the Appellate Tribunal left the question open for determination, and thus, the non-answering did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the principles of review to the facts, noting that the assessment and block assessment orders contained sufficient material and discussion. The interpretation of these records by the previous judgment did not exhibit an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court reiterated the limited scope of review, emphasizing that:

• "Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
• "Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found."
• "Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits."
• The observation of the ITR as "non-est" was not a binding conclusion but a passing remark, and thus, not grounds for review.
• The non-answering of the substantial question of law in the previous judgment was not an error apparent on the face of the record.

In conclusion, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the previous judgment dated 16.05.2014 and rejected the review application. The judgment underscores the strict boundaries of the review process, emphasizing that it is not an opportunity to re-litigate or re-evaluate the merits of the case.