2017 (11) TMI 583 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - existence of keying error - counsel for the applicant has contended that the financial statements of the applicant have been signed by the auditor, which will clearly show that major portion of the applicant s income was from property and that there was no business income and this was the keying error - Held that - This Court is of the considered view that the grounds raised by the applicant are, in fact, grounds, which were canvassed before this Court while arguing the said writ petition. Thus, the settled legal principle is that the revision is not an appeal in disguise. The exercise of review jurisdiction could be done only if the applicant is able to point out an error, which is apparent on the face of the order. From the submissions made, this Court finds that the applicant has not been able to point out any error, which is apparent on the face of the order, but the attempt appears to be re-arguing the entire matter, which is impermissible. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no grounds to entertain this review. Accordingly, the above review application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Review of order passed in a writ petition challenging an income tax assessment order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

1. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to entertain plea of keying mistake in revised return:
The applicant filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assessing Officer who refused to entertain the plea of a keying mistake in the revised return, citing the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT. The revisional authority also rejected the revision petition, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court. The applicant argued that the keying error was discovered during scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act, emphasizing that the financial statements supported this claim. However, the court held that the revision is not an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the order. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate such an error, leading to the dismissal of the review application.

2. Scope of review jurisdiction and impermissibility of re-arguing the matter:
The court emphasized that the exercise of review jurisdiction is limited to identifying errors that are apparent on the face of the order. The applicant's attempt to re-argue the entire matter was deemed impermissible. Citing legal principles, the court reiterated that a review cannot be treated as a means to re-litigate the case or raise new arguments that were previously considered. The court concluded that the applicant did not establish any such error in the order under review, thereby dismissing the review application.

3. Legal precedent and the principle of infallibility:
The applicant's counsel referred to a Supreme Court observation in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd., highlighting the possibility of errors in judgments. The court acknowledged the fallibility of judicial decisions but maintained that the review process is distinct from challenging the merits of a decision. Despite the reference to legal precedents, the court held that the applicant's grounds for review did not meet the threshold of demonstrating an error on the face of the order. The court's decision to dismiss the review application was based on the lack of identifiable errors warranting a review.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the review application challenging an order passed in a writ petition related to an income tax assessment under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the applicant failed to establish any error on the face of the order, emphasizing that a review is not an avenue to re-argue the entire matter. Despite references to legal principles and precedents, the court found no grounds to entertain the review, leading to the dismissal of the application.