2003 (5) TMI 42 - HC - Income Tax

Application for review of an order - We are of the view that there is no error in fact or law in this case. - we do not find any ingredient in the present case in order to admit the application for review - The review application is, therefore, dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-consideration of written submissions before delivering judgment.
2. Incorrect application of law regarding the interpretation of section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Factual error regarding the liquidation status of the company.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Written Submissions:
Mr. Prosad contended that the judgment was delivered before he could submit his written notes, which contained citations and decisions not presented during the hearing. He argued that the court had assured further hearings before delivering the judgment, which was not adhered to. However, the court found no record supporting the claim that it would wait for written submissions or conduct further hearings. The review process cannot entertain new evidence not on record at the time of the original judgment. Thus, this ground was found unsustainable.

2. Incorrect Application of Law (Section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961):
Mr. Prosad argued that the court did not consider the law as it stood on June 12, 2000, specifically the interpretation of section 179 as amended from October 1, 1975. He claimed the court relied on a Kerala High Court decision, which was not applicable, and ignored the Bombay High Court decision in Union of India v. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar [1988] 172 ITR 1. The court noted that the decision dated June 12, 2000, had considered the earlier order dated February 17, 1986, which held that the amendment of section 179 was not retrospective. This decision was binding and operated as res judicata. The Division Bench had reviewed the relevant decisions and concluded that the Bombay High Court decision was inapplicable due to the binding nature of the earlier decision. Therefore, the court found no error in law or fact, dismissing this ground as well.

3. Factual Error Regarding Liquidation Status:
Mr. Prosad claimed that the company went into liquidation before the petitioner's husband ceased to be a director, which was not considered by the court. The court reviewed the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner, both of whom did not find evidence of the company going into liquidation. The court concluded that there was no factual error regarding the liquidation status, and this ground did not warrant a review.

Conclusion:
The court held that the earlier decision dated February 17, 1986, was conclusive and binding, operating as res judicata. The review application did not meet the criteria for review as per the principles under section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The alleged errors were neither patent nor self-evident. The court dismissed the review application, finding no error in fact or law, and no order as to costs was made. Urgent xerox certified copies of the order were to be supplied within seven days if applied for.