2024 (5) TMI 1024 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - seeking review / recall of order 2023 (11) TMI 652 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT whereby the appeal has been dismissed in absence of any substantial questions of law - ' mistake or error apparent - HELD THAT - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others 1980 (7) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT as observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman 2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta 2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT has held that a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal 2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT , there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the High Court can review/recall its order dismissing an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the grounds for review, as per Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, are satisfied in this case.

Summary:

1. Review/Recall of Order Dismissing Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act:
The petitioner sought review/recall of the High Court's order dated 10.10.2023, which dismissed the appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenged the ITAT's final order regarding Assessment Year 2012-13, asserting substantial questions of law. The petitioner argued that the ITAT did not adjudicate the cross objection, rendering it unacademic and infructuous due to previous dismissals of related appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The petitioner contended that Clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 260A allows the High Court to decide issues not determined by the ITAT.

2. Grounds for Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC:
The respondents opposed the review, stating that the ITAT recorded no substantial arguments in support of the cross objection, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. They argued that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and no error apparent on record existed to invoke Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The court elaborated on the scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reasons. The court cited precedents, including Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, and others, highlighting that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or repeat old arguments.

Conclusion:
The court found that none of the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC were satisfied. The petitioner's arguments did not demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or any new evidence that could alter the judgment. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, affirming that the original order did not warrant interference.