TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss objection. The learned ITAT held that the cross objection by the assessee had only been filed to support the first appellate order. No substantial argument has been advanced in support of the cross objection by the petitioner. Since by the earlier orders, the ITAT has dismissed the appeals for the Assessment Years - 2011 - 12, 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14, therefore, cross objections of the assessee are not being adjudicated upon as having become unacademic and infructuous. Learned counsel further contended that Clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act provides that the High Court may decide an issue, which is not determined by the ITAT. The word 'determined' means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word 'determined, presupposes an issue was raised on argument but there is a failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicate the same. Learned counsel further contended that a substantial question of law may arise because of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, but the said issue / question is not determined. In such cases, an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be entertained depending ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.] " 08. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.' 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment. XXX XXX XXX 58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635. It is not the case of the petitioners that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, CJ in - 'Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality reported in ILR 1953 Bom 191, that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance." (emphasis added) 12. It is also settled law that in exe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. 12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted." (emphasis added) 14. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sites through which the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his home- stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court with the following observations: "3 ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh and Others v. State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....echnicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court". (emphasis added) 19. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, the Apex Court held as follows: "4..... It is well settled that the power t....