2018 (5) TMI 634 - HC - Income Tax

Review petition - mistake or error apparent - appeals have been decided taking into account the issue of depreciation of assets and other grounds have not been considered - Held that - When the appellant has not addressed this Court on the issue, this Court has passed an order on the issue of depreciation of assets. There is no error apparent on face of record warranting review. Apex Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors. 2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT has held that 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 in fact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. In the present case 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.

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay.
2. Review of the order dated 24.10.2017 concerning the issue of depreciation of assets.
3. Consideration of other grounds not addressed in the original appeal.
4. Examination of error apparent on the face of the record as a ground for review.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The court considered I.A. No.2052/2018, an application for condonation of delay, and allowed it. Consequently, the delay was condoned.

2. Review of the Order Dated 24.10.2017 Concerning Depreciation of Assets:
The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 24.10.2017, asserting that the appeals were decided solely on the issue of depreciation of assets without considering other grounds. The court noted that the petitioner did not address the court on other issues during the appeal. The court referenced the case of Thakur Sukhpal Singh v/s Thakur Kalyan Singh, emphasizing that it is the appellant's duty to show the judgment under appeal is erroneous. If the appellant does not raise specific points, the appellate court can decide the appeal without addressing those points. The court concluded there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding the issue of depreciation of assets.

3. Consideration of Other Grounds Not Addressed in the Original Appeal:
The respondent argued that other grounds were not argued before the court. The court, referring to the judgment in Thakur Sukhpal Singh, stated that the appellate court is not obligated to address points not raised by the appellant. The court reiterated that it is the appellant's responsibility to show the judgment under appeal is erroneous for specific reasons. The court found no error in its original decision, as the appellant did not address other grounds during the appeal.

4. Examination of Error Apparent on the Face of the Record as a Ground for Review:
The court examined whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record that would warrant a review. It referenced several judgments, including Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Bank, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, and S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission. The court emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require detailed examination. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error. The court reiterated that review proceedings are not an appeal and cannot be used to reargue the case on merits.

Conclusion:
The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petition. The petitioner was essentially challenging the original order under the guise of a review, which is not permissible. The review petition was dismissed, and the order dated 24.10.2017 remained unchanged.

← Previous Next →