TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by the Assessing Officer for initiating the process of re-assessment state that on examination of the documents on record and 26 AS, it was noticed that in the Profit and Loss account, the petitioner had showed total receipts of Rs.2,61,28,435/-, including commission income of Rs.2,50,58,983/-, and interest income of Rs.10,69,452/-. However, as per 26 AS its total receipt under Sections 194 A, 194 C, 194 H, 194 I and 194 J is Rs.5,23,84,738/-. The Assessing Officer recorded that there is a difference of Rs.2,62,56,303/- in the receipts shown by the petitioner, which income has escaped assessment. During the assessment proceedings, the petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancy and 10 it stated that at the time of reimbursing the expenses, some of its principals are deducting TDS under Section 194 C and some are deducting it under Section 194 H and, therefore, these receipts are not reflecting in its income. However, the petitioner has received payments under Sections 194 I and 194 J also, but it did not show the above receipts and gave no explanation for the same. It did not produce any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred by it on behalf of the principal compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eless Assessment Centre rejecting the petitioner's objections against the notice, do not suffer from any such illegality as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction and, accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 6. The petitioner has sought a review of the aforesaid judgment on the grounds that it had not received any payments from its Principals on which TDS had been deducted under Section 194-I and Section 194-J which is evident from 26 AS; that the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer makes no mention of non-disclsoure of the amount of reimbursement of expenses; that the figure of Rs.5,23,84,738/- alleged to have been received through commission and Rs.36,13,775/- alleged to be TDS do not appear in 26 AS and the same are imaginary. The petitioner has further contended that the judgment in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) is case specific and it cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner and the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) supports the petitioner's contention that to initiate reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material before him before proceeding to initiate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier decisions on the point and summarized the law on the subject in the following manner: - "15.1.In Inderchand Jain (2009) 14 SCC 663 it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) '56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.' *** 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, reliance was placed by the respondent on the decision in BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club(2005) 4 SCC 741 to submit that exercise in review would be justified if there be misconception of fact or law. Para 90 of the said decision was to the following effect: (SCC p. 765) "90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit." 17.We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n and going through the income tax return and other related documents of the petitioner and after recording a reason to believe that the petitioner did not truly and fully disclose all the material facts, because of which income amounting to Rs. 2,62,56,303/- has escaped assessment. We merely recorded our satisfaction that there was prima facie material available on record before the assessing officer for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act, without going into the sufficiency or correctness of the material, which, of course, will be looked into by the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings and the petitioner will have to place its case in that proceedings. The reassessment has not been ordered on the sole ground the petitioner had received payments under Sections 194 I and 194 J also, but it had not shown the said receipts in his Profit and Loss account and had not given any explanation for the same and entertaining this ground raised by the petitioner for review would necessarily require a re-hearing of the Writ Petition as this ground does not relate to an error, which can be said to be apparent on the face of the record. 13. The learned Counsel for the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Lal (supra) supports the petitioner's contention that to initiate reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material before him before proceeding to initiate the reimbursement under Section 147 of the Act. 16. The ratio of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (1) and (2) (supra), is that at the stage of issuing a notice for reassessment, the court has only to see whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which, the department could re-open the case; the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage, and this ratio does not appear to be based on any peculiar facts so as to be not applicable to the present case and the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the aforesaid ratio is based on any peculiar facts and it would not apply to the present case. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) is case specific and it cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. 17. So far as the subm....