TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1064
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 31/03/2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(herein after referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) and notice dated 31/03/2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. 4. The petitioner had challenged the notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 which is based on the order dated 31/03/2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act on the ground that notice as well as the order are illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. This Court while dismissing the writ petition came to the conclusion that the orders/notices impugned need not to be interfered with since the issue regarding veracity and genuineness of the material/evidence forming the opinion of the Assessing Officer suggesting that income of the petitioner/assessee has escaped assessment cannot be gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court also went on to hold that the notice is at a very premature stage, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:- "Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 11. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality." (emphasis added) 14. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the Apex Court held as under: "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.1reported in 1964 SCR (5) 174, this Court opined: '11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could 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. Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that after an application for review has been disposed of no further application shall be entertained in the same matter. XXX XXX XXX 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram reported in AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius reported in 1955 SCR 520. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa reported in 1955 SCR 250 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 , it was held: "It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error, cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added) 17. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 501, where it was held thus: "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 19. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Apex Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had overlooked two important....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aptioned judgment, the term 'mistake or error apparent' has been discussed in the following words: "22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision". (emphasis added) 22. In S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court explained as to when a review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus : "18. Justice is a virt....