2015 (11) TMI 126 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - revenue invoking the provisions of Section 114 read with order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to contend that there is an error apparent on the record in the judgments passed by this Court on 24.5.2014? - whether Section 115 JB provides that any amount credited to the profit and loss account on account of amounts withdrawn from the reserve or provision had to be reduced from the book profit with an exception that if such reserve or provision is out of reserve created prior to or before 1.4.1997 and, such reserve has been created not by way of debit to the profit and loss account, then the same will not be permitted to be reduced from the net profit as per profit and loss account? Held that - The questions now sought to be raised in these petitions cannot be gone into because the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision is incorrect or erroneous on merit, as the same lies only within the ambit of higher court having appellate power. It is the appellate court which alone is in a position to correct the error committed by the subordinate courts by virtue of power of appeal conferred on the said court by some statute, of course subject to the exception that the error is otherwise apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing and this Court while exercising power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own order. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case within the four corners of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we find no merit in these Review Petitions and the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Review petition invoking Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to challenge the judgments passed by the Court.

Analysis:
The review petitions were filed by the Revenue, contending an error in the judgments passed by the Court. The primary ground for seeking a review was the alleged failure of the Court to consider the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, specifically section 115 JB, and the impact of a judgment by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized the scope of review, citing previous cases to establish principles regarding maintainability/non-maintainability of review petitions. The principles included scenarios where a review would be maintainable, such as the discovery of new evidence, and situations where it would not be maintainable, like minor mistakes or a repetition of old arguments.

The Court noted that the submissions made by the petitioner contradicted the record, highlighting that the relevant provisions and judgments were indeed considered in detail in the previous judgment. The Court quoted a conclusion from the prior judgment, stating the position on the interpretation of Section 115 JB of the Act. The Court reiterated that the power of review cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a decision on merit, as that falls within the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The review process does not entitle parties to a re-hearing, and the Court, during a review, cannot act as an appellate authority over its own order.

Ultimately, the Court found that the petitioners failed to establish a case within the legal framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.