TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case has arrived at a conclusion that it was not a case where the assessee was ready to deposit the income tax. The assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the search and seizure operations and the Principal Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction judiciously keeping in view Sec. 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, in fact, now wants rehearing of the matter which is not permissible. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax can never be said to be a cryptic / non-speaking order, as stated in the grounds raised in the review petition. The legality and validity of the order has been looked into by this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held as under :- 13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irrelevant so far as Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, the High Court erred in holding that no prayer for leave under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC was made in the plaint in Title Suit No. 201 of 1985. The claim of oral agreement dated 19- 8-1982 is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint, and at the end of the plaint it has been noted that the right to institute the suit for specific performance was reserved. That being so, the High Court has erroneously held about infraction of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This was not a case where Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has any application. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner infact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. Similarly the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 in paragraphs 21, 22 and 35 has held as under :- "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier." In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has held that a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is prima-facie visible and does not require any detail examination. In the present case the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits. The Apex Court again dealing with the scope ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hdrawal of some amount by one of the creditors of the defendant as also the defendant himself. (ii) The defendant's application before the executing court that he was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed on receipt of amount in cash and the said admission allegedly was not brought to the notice of the court. (iii) While holding that there was no agreement to reduce the sale consideration, the High Court had ignored the fact that it was an admitted case of the parties, as stipulated in the contract, that the defendants would get the premises vacated from the tenants within three months. (iv) The appellant had prayed for an alternative relief viz. that he was ready to get the decree for specific performance of contract by paying Rs. 1,15,000. The court did not consider the evidence of DWs 1 to 6 in their proper perspective. (v) The court did not consider that the property could not be restored back to the appellant-defendant and as such the court should have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. 24. An appeal is a continuation of the suit. Any decision taken by the appellate court would relate back, unless a contrary int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit." In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied." The Apex Court while dealing with the scope of review has held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Cathol....