Processing of income tax returns: review petition dismissed; returns to be processed per law and accepted if time-barred

Whether the review petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record: the record showed representation by counsel and an opportunity of hearing was accorded, so no error apparent and the review is not maintainable on that ground. Whether the judgment should have decided validity of income-tax returns: the judgment directed that the returns be processed in accordance with law and, if the processing period has expired, accepted at face value, so omission to adjudicate validity did not vitiate the order. Whether review may re-argue merits: review is confined to narrow corrections or new evidence and cannot substitute for an appeal, hence review dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Review Petitions should be entertained on the ground that the original judgment was passed without giving the Revenue an opportunity to file a counter affidavit; (ii) Whether the Review Petitions should be entertained on the ground that the original judgment failed to decide whether the returns were validly filed.

Issue (i): Whether the Review Petitions are maintainable because the original judgment was passed without granting the Revenue an opportunity to file its counter affidavit.

Analysis: The record shows representation and hearing afforded to the Revenue through counsel at the time the original judgment was pronounced. The relied upon precedent where no one had appeared for respondents is distinguishable on that factual basis. The review jurisdiction does not permit re-examination of a judgment where an opportunity to be heard was in fact provided.

Conclusion: The Review Petitions are not maintainable on this ground; this contention is rejected in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Review Petitions are maintainable because the original judgment did not decide whether the returns were validly filed.

Analysis: The original judgment directed that the returns be processed in accordance with law and recorded that if the statutory period for processing had expired the returns must be accepted at face value. The scope of review is limited to corrigible errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence; it is not a forum for re-arguing matters or for converting review into an appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The Review Petitions are not maintainable on this ground; this contention is rejected in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Review Petitions fail to identify any error apparent on the face of the record or any new evidence warranting review; consequently the Review Petitions are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A review petition is maintainable only for errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important facts; absence of a substantive error of that character or presence of an opportunity to be heard precludes reopening the judgment.

---