TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short hereafter referred to as "the Act, 1963"). 2. Register the review application. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant/review applicant and Dr. A. K. Saraf, senior advocate assisted by Ms. N. Hawelia, advocate for the opposite party. 4. The aforenoted appeal being barred by limitation, condonation of the delay involved was prayed for by the applicant. At the relevant point of time, i.e., on June 16, 2010, no power lay with the High Court under section 260A of the Act to condone such delay in filing any appeal there- under. To this effect, a decision in CIT v. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 368 (Gauhati), was also rendered by a Division ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contrary. According to the learned senior counsel, if such a plea is entertained vis-a-vis cases finally closed, it would amount to expanding the contours of review jurisdiction on grounds inconceivable in law. Emphasizing that the power of review is not inherent and ought to be endowed by law. Dr. Saraf has urged that amend- ment of law with retrospective effect by no means can be brought within the purview of the grounds of review enumerated in Order 47, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereafter referred to as "the Code"). The learned counsel has urged that though this court is bestowed with plenary jurisdiction to correct errors, in the interest of justice, the ground urged on behalf of the applicant is not one legally envisaged and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. The apex court in A. C. Estates, AIR 1966 SC 935, had disapproved the invocation of the power of review contemplated under Order 47 of rule 1 of the Code on the ground of some subsequent event. 12. That a subsequent decision by a court or a subsequent alteration of law is not a ground of review under Order 47 of the Code was enunciated by the Calcutta High Court in Surajmull Choteylal [1978] 114 ITR 130 (Cal) their Lordships held against the permissibility of reviewing an order by the High Court on a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of a subsequent decision of the apex court overruling its earlier decision. 13. A Division Bench of this court in India Carbon Ltd. [2007] 3 GLT 339 while dwelling on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1934, for a sum of Rs. 1,31,040-10 with cost and future interest. The heirs and legal representatives of the judgment debtor there- after applied for reduction of the decretal amount under section 4 of the U.P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952 (Act XV of 1953), which was rejected. An appeal was preferred against the same, which was heard on November 27, 1962 (XX of 1962), by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which sustained the dismissal. Soon thereafter, the U. P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952, was amended by the U. P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction (Amendment) Act, 1962, with effect from November 27, 1962, which incidentally, was the date on which the High Court had dismissed the appeal as above. It is, in this backgro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o and full effect must be given to the statutory fiction and it should be carried to its logical conclu- sion." 17. The observations of Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [1952] AC 109 to the following effect was also recalled : "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative, state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it . . . The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs ; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitabl....