TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record and 26 AS, it was noticed that the petitioner has received payment under Section 194 J also, but it did not show the said receipts in its Profit and Loss Account and did not give any explanation for the same. The Assessing Officer has further recorded that the petitioner did not disclose the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed by it and the actual amount received by it towards reimbursement; that it did not submit the details of the expenses incurred by it for verification and it did not produce the ledgers, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred on behalf of the Principal companies and that as per 26 AS the total receipts of the petitioner were Rs.4,66,84,247/- and the TDS was Rs.32,14,869/- whereas it has shown its income at Rs.3,59,59,861/- which is short by Rs.1,07,24,386/- and this income appears to have escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has recorded that although the petitioner had produced the books of account, annual report, Profit and Loss Account and balance-sheet, but the requisite material facts were embedded in such a manner that the same could not be discovered by the Assessing Officer and it came to light upon investigation conducted subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 148 of the Act and the consequential proceedings was dismissed. 6. The petitioner has filed the instant application for review of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court dismissing the Writ Petition. 7. 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. 8. 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 the following words: - "an error apparent 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 point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 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, the Tribunal deviated from the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision 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) 10. 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 reviewed suffers from any such error as strikes on mere looking at the record and as would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning for being established and regarding which there may not be conceivably be two opinions. 11. The petitioner has sought a review of the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the payments made under Section 194 J are clearly reflected in 26 AS and the same had been reconciled by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings and the difference between the receipts reflected in 26-AS and those reflected in its Profit and Loss Account had been explained through its letter dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills 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. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that 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 the reimbursement under Section 147 of the Act. 16. The learned Counsel for ....