2020 (1) TMI 1118 - HC - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - appellant has argued before this Court as there was audit objection in the matter the appeal could not be disposed of as done by this Court - HELD THAT - Revenue has not pointed out that the audit objection has been accepted by department nor any record has been place before us. As decided in Haridas Das case 2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner infact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review The petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on merits. Apex Court again dealing with the scope of interference and limitation of review in the case of In derchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs 2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT while dealing with the scope of review has held that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible in light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This court does not find any reason to review the order

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CBDT circulars regarding audit objections.
2. Scope and limitations of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of CBDT Circulars Regarding Audit Objections:
The appellant argued that the appeal could not be disposed of due to an audit objection, referencing CBDT circulars dated 10.12.2015 and 11.07.2018. The court noted that in similar circumstances, as seen in ITA No.75/2019, the mere raising of an audit objection is insufficient unless it is shown that the audit objection has been accepted by the department. The court cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd., which emphasized that the Revenue must provide records proving the acceptance of the audit objection. Since no such records were presented, the court dismissed the appeal in line with the CBDT circulars.

2. Scope and Limitations of Review Under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC:
The court referred to several precedents, including Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank and State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta, to outline the scope of review. The review can only be sought on grounds of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or present new evidence that could have been produced earlier with due diligence.

3. Whether There Was an Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The court found no error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any patent error that would justify a review. The court reiterated that an error must be self-evident and not require detailed examination or reasoning. The judgments cited, including Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal and S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, supported the principle that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible under the guise of a review.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the petitioner was essentially challenging the original order under the guise of a review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and no interference was deemed necessary in the order dated 12.12.2019 passed in ITA No. 93/2019. The court reaffirmed that the principles of review do not allow for a rehearing of the case or reconsideration of evidence unless a clear and manifest error is present on the record.