2018 (7) TMI 1728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... review application is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in M.A.     No.214 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal filed by the review petitioner. The review petitioner preferred M.A. No.214 of 2002 against the order dated 11.01.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna in ITA No.240/Pat/2001 for the assessment year 1995-96 reversing the order passed by the CIT(A)-II, Patna in ITA No. 166/PAT/A-II/99-2000 dated 18.12.2000. The genesis of the dispute is return filed by the assessee on 31.10.1996 disclosing total income of Rs. 5,76,133/- from the carriage contract. The case was selected for scrutiny and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fted from the various companies located at Haldia. Here in this case too the assessee no where disputes the quantity of the goods lifted by it from various companies at Haldia. It has not been disputed that bitumen weighing 10000.77 I.T. was lifted by it from Haldia. Its claim that full supply was made stands demolished when photocopies of delivery challans were found to be false and fabricated. All Executive Engineers asserted that delivery to the tune of 8206.2 MT of bitumen was made to their respective divisions. They had confirmed non- delivery to the tune of 2090.40 MT by the assessee. In such a situation the Act was justified in adding a sum of Rs. 1,04,71.720 to the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 69A of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner of Customs and Central Excise Versus Hongo India Private Limited and another [(2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 791]. So far maintainability of the review application is concerned, the Full Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2010 passed in this review application itself has held that the High Court, being the court of superior jurisdiction and a Court of record, can entertain application for review arising out of judgment passed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act. A question arose that what would be the ambit and scope of such review. Whether it can be equivalent to the jurisdiction exercised by the court in appeal? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Bharti Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2014) 7 Supreme Court Case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the review petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that conclusion reached by the Division Bench was wrong and on the basis of the facts and the materials available on record, the Court should have reached to another conclusion. In our view, this is not the ambit and scope of the review. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sasi (Dead) through legal representatives (Supra) that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error apparent on record. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the review petitioner that the appellate tribunal, in separate appeals filed by....