9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 328 - HC - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 154 - HELD THAT - As decided in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) 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 infect under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CBDT Circulars in the context of audit objections. 2. Scope and grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of CBDT Circulars in the Context of Audit Objections: The primary issue in this case revolves around the applicability of CBDT circulars in the context of audit objections. The appellant argued that the appeal could not be disposed of due to an existing audit objection, citing the CBDT circular dated 10.12.2015 read with the circular dated 11.07.2018. The court referred to a similar case, ITA No.75/2019, where it was held that mere raising of an audit objection is insufficient unless the Revenue Audit Objection has been accepted by the Department. The court emphasized that the Revenue must provide evidence that the audit objection has been accepted, as stated in the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai vs. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. The court found no record that the audit objection had been accepted by the Department and thus disposed of the appeal in light of the CBDT circulars dated 10.12.2015 and 11.07.2018. 2. Scope and Grounds for Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC: The review petition was examined under the scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The court cited several precedents to define the scope and grounds for review. It referred to Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors., emphasizing that a review is permissible only for a "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" or for "any other sufficient reason." The court clarified that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue the case or present new evidence that was not originally available. Further, the court cited State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., which outlined that an error must be self-evident and not require detailed examination. The court also referred to Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs, which reiterated that re-appreciation of evidence and rehearing of the case is not permissible under the guise of review unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, the court highlighted that an error must be manifest and not one that needs to be fished out through detailed examination. The court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the present case, and the petitioner was essentially challenging the original order under the guise of a review. Conclusion: The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition, stating that the grounds for review were not met as per the established legal principles. The review petition was dismissed, and the original order dated 12.12.2019 in ITA No. 94/2019 was upheld.
|
