2013 (9) TMI 1216 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Review petition u/s 114 CPC against judgment in Income Tax Appeal No.5 of 2008 for assessment year 2003-04.

The review petition was filed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.5 of 2008 for the assessment year 2003-04. The appellant's counsel argued that the Court had admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law but declined to answer them, stating they would be addressed in another case. The counsel contended that the Court should have provided answers when the questions were admitted. The appellant's case was said to be supported by precedents such as CIT v. Raghvendra Pratap Singh [2009] 14 MTC 415 and Indwell Constructions v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (AP) regarding estimation of net profit after rejecting books of accounts. The appellant also emphasized that the CIT (A) and ITAT had reached concurrent findings of fact, which the Court was bound by. The appellant requested the order dated 30.05.2013 to be recalled. On the other hand, the department's counsel supported the Court's order.

After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court noted that the scope of review was limited, and the order could not be reopened under the guise of a review. It was emphasized that no re-hearing on merit was permissible in a review. In this case, where the facts were unclear, the matter was referred back to the Tribunal for resolution within three months. The Tribunal was considered the final fact-finding authority, as established in the case of Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam v. Controller of Estate Duty [2002] 253 ITR 692/121 Taxman 615. The Court found that there was no mistake apparent from the face of the record in the order dated 30.05.2013.

The Court referred to the statutory grounds for seeking a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which include the discovery of new and important matters, the inability to produce crucial evidence during the original proceedings, or the presence of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. It was highlighted that an error requiring lengthy reasoning to establish differing opinions could not be considered an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court cited precedents to emphasize the limited purpose of a review petition, stating that it cannot be allowed to become an appeal in disguise.

In conclusion, the Court found no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition was dismissed for lack of merit.