TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng review of the order passed by this Court in its Income Tax Appeal no. 7 of 2023 preferred under section 260-A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. It is necessary to note that though the learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the respondent - revenue initially raised objection as to the maintainability of application for review, with a common understanding we have heard the review application in its entirety and are passing the order. 3. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this review application are to the effect that the applicant is a trust engaged in running educational institutions. The assessment officer served it a notice under section 143 (2) of the Act on 03-02-2014. On enquiry, he concluded that it had receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Exercise of verifying genuineness by sample check was resorted to. Except few, the donors could not be identified. 5. We had also observed that in the light of section 133 (6) of the Act, donors' list was produced before the CIT (A) in the appeal under the pretext that the first list produced by it was erroneous, still, enquiry was undertaken by resorting to sample check to identify the donors. Identity of the donors could not be established. Eight donors flatly denied to have paid any donation. Notices / letters sent to many of the donors from the list furnished by the applicant under section 133 (6) had returned unserved with the remarks 'address not found', 'insufficient address', 'addressee left'. Consequently, we held that the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Officer had failed to appreciate the fact and passed the order on 27-03-2014 ignoring that there is no provision obligating the applicant to maintain record regarding identity of donors. Affidavits of a trustee and a clerk were also filed as contemplated under Rule 46-A to clarify the error in preparing the list. 8. While the appeal was pending before the CIT (A), there were as many as 770 notarized affidavits and still erroneously, doubt was raised about the identity. It was a plausible explanation but this Court had overlooked all these circumstances. The CIT (A) after due scrutiny of the affidavits and after summoning the two other witnesses from the trust under section 131 of the Act had correctly observed that the first list pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er rely upon following decisions to substantiate his arguments: i) Director of Income Tax V. Keshav Social and Charitable foundation; 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1487, ii) Director of Income Tax V. Hans Raj Samarak Society; 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4916, iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. MBA Nahata Charitble Trust; 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12351. 13. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the revenue would raise a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the application for review. He would submit that review is a statutory power and cannot be assumed to inhere in this Court. There is no provision in the Act conferring such power. Even if the High Court is a court of record, it can merely correct its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to how the CBDT circulars no. 10 and 13 are not applicable to the applicant's case even on facts. 16. As far as maintainability of the review application is concerned, in our considered view, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Meghalaya Steel and Automobile Corporation of Goa (supra) needs to be followed wherein it has been expressly laid down that by virtue of the High Court being a Court of record, in view of Article 215 and 226 of the Constitution of India, it will have inherent power and jurisdiction to undertake a review in the light of sub-section 7 of section 260-A of the Act. 17. So far as the merits of the review application are concerned, a bare look at the submissions of the learned advocate for the applican....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocess of reasoning to be undertaken to detect it, it can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. 19. As laid down in the matter of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Services Ltd.; (2023) 8 SCC 11, an error on the face of the record must be such an error which merely looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long drawn procedure on the points where there may be two opinions. 20. Bearing in mind these principles, the whole submissions made by Mr. Deshmukh on behalf of the applicant would clearly demonstrate that every attempt has been made to re-argue the appeal which cannot be permitted to be done. 21. It is admitted that no concrete record of the donors was produced. Even a list ....