9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1301 - HC - Income TaxReview Petition - Interest u/s 220(2) levied - applicant came up with a case that levy of interest was on the higher side and it was causing great hardship - writ was earlier rejected against order of Pr. CIT application for waiver of interest u/s 220(2) - HELD THAT - As decided in HARIDAS DAS VERSUS SMT. USHA RANI BANIK ORS 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 infact 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 . See INDERCHAND JAIN (D) TH. LRS. VERSUS MOTILAL (D) TH. LRS. 2009 (7) TMI 1029 - SUPREME COURT dealing with the 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. Thus this court does not find any reason to review the order.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicant's request for waiver of interest due to hardship. 3. Scope and grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. 4. Error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Rehearing and reappreciation of evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's Order: The applicant challenged the order dated 4/12/2018 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain, under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the levy of interest was excessively high and causing hardship. The court concluded that the Principal Commissioner exercised his jurisdiction judiciously under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the order was neither cryptic nor non-speaking. 2. Applicant's Request for Waiver of Interest: The applicant sought a waiver of interest due to the hardship caused by the high levy. However, the court found that the applicant was not ready to deposit the income tax, and the Principal Commissioner had validly rejected the waiver application. The court upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision, noting that the applicant's request for waiver did not merit reconsideration. 3. Scope and Grounds for Review under CPC: The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. It emphasized that a review is permissible only on grounds of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The court cited several precedents, including Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (2006) 4 SCC 78, which clarified that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for rehearing the matter. 4. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The court examined whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record that warranted a review. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, the court noted that an error apparent must be self-evident and not require detailed examination. The court found no such error in the present case, as the applicant failed to point out any error that was prima facie visible. 5. Rehearing and Reappreciation of Evidence: The court reiterated that reappreciation of evidence and rehearing of the case are not permissible under the guise of a review. It referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal (2009) 14 SCC 663, which held that review jurisdiction does not allow for reappreciation of evidence. The court concluded that the applicant's request was essentially an attempt to challenge the original order without any valid ground for review. Conclusion: The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and no sufficient reason to review the order dated 10/4/2019. The review petition was dismissed, upholding the legality and validity of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's order and emphasizing the limited scope of review under the CPC.
|
