TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ethod of computation of profits for the assessment year 1996-97 has been adopted and accepted by the assessee for succeeding years. This, according to the learned counsel is erroneous, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 1998-99, has accepted the computation of profits of the assessee and the same has attained finality. The learned counsel further submitted that the said order dated 25.04.2007 was circulated before this Court, when the main appeal was heard and insofar as the computation of profits for the succeeding assessment year has been accepted, the order of the Tribunal and the order of this Court at paragraph No.91, confirming the order of the Tribunal contain a patent error in law and hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of such error, finality attached to the order cannot be distributed. It has been further held that the power of review can also be exercised by the Court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place, which despite exercise of due diligent was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Further a review would lie, if the order has been passed on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. It has been further held that it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, as review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. To put it differently an order or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court on a point of fact or law. The Court while exercising the power of review, cannot sit in appeal over its decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in 2007 (5) CTC 881, explaining the term 'error' contemplated under Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the next year and therefore this Court agreed that the findings of the Tribunal that the denominator should also be the total registered value instead of total receipts. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and perusing the materials placed, we find that the contention raised by the learned counsel referring to page No.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 is thoroughly misconceived. In fact, the portion which was referred to at page No.4 of the said order is in fact the observation or the opinion of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while considering the correctness of the said observation has referred to in detail the entire issue and in page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contention of the ld. A.R. regarding the allocation of profit arising out of the entire project over the impugned three A.Ys in the light of the order dated 15.10.2004 of the CIT (A)-VI, Chennai is correct. The argument of the A.O. that the profit amounting to Rs.4,81,04,107/- remained unapportioned to any A.y. is not tenable. She appears to have misinterpreted the order of the CIT(A)-VI. She applied the ratio of 0.38345 to the cost of land registered during the different A.Ys. The appropriate method which ought to have been followed by the A.O., would be to apply the said ratio to the gross receipts from M/s BIC in different A.Ys. In that case no ambiguity would have arisen at all. On the basis of this correct method, the appellant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of Rs.5,47,02,478/-. Accordingly, the appellant has not disputed the A.O's gross profit figure. This now brings me to the second issue relating to the trading loss of Rs.6,10,44,859/-". 7. At this stage, it has to be pointed out that though the assessee has not preferred any appeal as against the order dated 15.10.2004, the revenue has preferred an appeal, which is the subject matter of T.C.A.No.215 of 2008. 8. Now, reverting back to the Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007, it was further pointed out by the Commissioner that the adoption of figure of Rs.16,80,53,026/- in the denominator could only gives rise to anomalous situation, which has been elaborately dealt with by the Commissioner in the said....