9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 911 - HC - Income TaxReview petition - error apparent on the face of record warranting review - Held that - As in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors 2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT 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. A mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record means a mistake or an error which is primafacie visible and does not require any detail examination. 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. See INDERCHAND JAIN (D) TH. LRS. VERSUS MOTILAL (D) TH. LRS 2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Review Petition for the order dated 07.05.2018 in I.T.A. No.223/2017. 2. Error apparent on the face of the record. 3. Scope and limitations of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Review Petition for the order dated 07.05.2018 in I.T.A. No.223/2017: The petitioner filed a review petition seeking to review the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Division Bench in I.T.A. No.223/2017. The Division Bench had decided the appeal on merits and concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The present court found no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant a review, suggesting that the petitioner’s remedy lies in approaching the Apex Court. 2. Error apparent on the face of the record: The court referenced the Apex Court’s rulings in Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors. and State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr. to elucidate the concept of "error apparent on the face of the record." The court noted that a review is permissible for mistakes or errors that are self-evident and do not require detailed examination. Errors requiring long debates or reasoning do not qualify. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error in the present case, thereby invalidating the grounds for review. 3. Scope and limitations of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: The court extensively discussed the limitations of review jurisdiction as established in various Supreme Court judgments. It highlighted that: - Review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. - Review can be sought for errors apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence. - The court cannot re-appreciate evidence or rehear the case under the guise of a review. - The grounds for review do not include subsequent decisions by superior courts or coordinate benches. The court cited Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs and S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission to reinforce that errors must be manifest and self-evident, and the review jurisdiction does not permit re-evaluation of the case merits. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition was essentially an attempt to challenge the merits of the original order, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found no reason to review the order dated 07.05.2018 in I.T.A. No.223/2017 and dismissed the review petition.
|
