TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1064
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Constitution of India challenging the order 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the writ petition. Accordingly, the present review petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed : "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: "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 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 afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words "any-other sufficient 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 state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337,. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: - (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier." (emphasis added) 21. In the captioned 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 ....