TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced the original record of the department, which contained the reasons recorded for initiation of the re-assessment proceedings and it was mentioned therein that the assessee had filed its return of income at Rs.9,62,130/- in its Profit and Loss account, the petitioner had disclosed commission income of Rs.2,50,58,983/- and interest income of Rs. 10,69,452/-; thus, the total receipts of the petitioner, as per the Profit and Loss account were Rs.2,61,28,435/-. However, the petitioner's total receipts under Sections 194 A, 194 C, 194 H, 194 I and 194 J, as per statement under Section 26AS are Rs.5,23,84,738/- and, therefore, there is a difference of Rs. 2,62,56,303/- in the receipt shown by the petitioner. The reasons recorded further state that during the assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancies but it gave no explanation for the payments received under Section 194 I and 194 J and it did not disclose the amount claimed towards reimbursement of expenses and amount received by it towards reimbursement. The reasons further state that the petitioner did not submit the details of expenses incurred by it on behalf of the principle and it did not produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. 8. The judgment passed by this Court has also been sought to be reviewed on the ground that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. 9. Before proceeding to examine the submissions of the learned Counsel for the review-petitioner, it would be appropriate to have a look at the scope of review. It is settled law that review cannot be treated as an appeal and a re-hearing of the matter is not allowed in the name of a review of the judgment. Review of a judgment can be sought only the ground that it suffers from an "error apparent on the face of the record". The meaning of the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, some of are being referred hereinbelow. 10. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the term "error apparent on the face of the record" in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: i. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ii. Power of review may be exercised 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." 15.2.In Ajit Kumar Rath(1999) 9 SCC 596, it was observed: (SCC p. 608, para 29) "29. In review proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17-2-2017. Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17-2-2017." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Thus the scope of review is well settled through various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an application for review does not lie for rehearing of the matter, review can only be sought on the ground of an error which is "apparent on the face of record" and for an error to be "apparent on the face of record" it should not require any long drawn process of reason and there cannot conceivably two views about it. 13. Now we proceed to examine the grounds taken by the petitioner for seeking a review of the judgment passed by this Court so as to ascertain whether this judgment sought to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch allegation, the question of reimbursement of expenses and question of non disclosure of the reimbursement of expenses does not arise, also cannot be raised in review proceedings. After going through the original record, we have recorded a categorical finding that the Assessing Officer has recorded his reason to believe that the petitioner had not disclosed the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed by it and the actual amount received by it towards reimbursement; that it had not submitted the details of expenses incurred by it for verification during the assessment proceedings and that it had not produced any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred on behalf of principal company and this finding does not appear to be suffering from any such error, as may be "apparent on the face of the record". 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 ....