9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-appreciation of materials placed - The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the order passed by the CIT (A) was not taken into consideration also deserves to be rejected – thus, there is no error apparent on the face of the record to exercise the review jurisdiction – Decided against Assessee. - Rev.Apl.No.40 of 2014 in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman And T. S. Sivagnanam,JJ. For the Applicant : Dr. Anitha Sumanth For the Respondent : Mr. M. Swaminathan ORDER (The Order of the Court was made by T. S. Sivagnanam, J.) This application has been filed by the assessee seeking review of the Judgment dated 29.11.2013 made in T.C.A.No.215 of 2008. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in paragraph No.91 of the Judgment, this Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal that assumes incorrectly that the method of computation of profits for the assessment year 1996-97 has been adopted and accepted by the assessee for succeeding years. This, according to the learned counsel is erroneous, as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 1998-99, has accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has been passed on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. It has been further held that it is beyond any doubt or dispute that the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order and rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, as review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view and such power can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with exercise of power. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) vs. Motilal (Dead) reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663, summarized the law on the exercise the power of review as under:- (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be 16,80,53,026/- instead of Rs.29,35,03,026/-. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to page No.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007. Therefore, it is submitted that this amount ought to have been rectified. It is further submitted that when the order dated 25.04.2007 was placed before this Court, this Court, made an erroneous observation in paragraph No.91 of its order by stating as if that the assessee has adopted similar method in the next year and therefore this Court agreed that the findings of the Tribunal that the denominator should also be the total registered value instead of total receipts. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and perusing the materials placed, we find that the contention raised by the learned counsel referring to page No.4 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25.04.2007 is thoroughly misconceived. In fact, the portion which was referred to at page No.4 of the said order is in fact the observation or the opinion of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), while considering the correctness of the said observation has refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not preferred appeal against the order dated 15.10.2004 of the CIT(A)-VI. At page 2 of the re-assessment order it is noticed that the A.O. has taken the value of sale deed at Rs.1,72,08,000/- for the A.Y. 1998-99 to arrive at the profit of Rs.65,98,407/- instead of adopting the sale proceeds for the year amounting to Rs.14,26,58,000/- which would have given rise to the actual profit of Rs.5,47,02,478/- as declared by the appellant finally. The profit figure for the A.Y. 1996-97 as arrived at by the A.O. was correct, because she had adopted the entire sale proceeds of Rs.13,17,51,816/- for that year. The fixation of the total consideration at Rs.29,35,03,026/- is a clear finding of fact and does not require any change. The A.O. has also accepted these figures. It is only the distribution of profits over the three A.Ys which was disputed by the A.O. by way of a miscellaneous petition before the CIT(A)-VI for the A.Y. 1996-97. According to me, the said miscellaneous petition is misplaced, because the adoption of the figure of Rs.16,80,53,026/-in the denominator only gives rise to an anomalous situation, as already indicated above. Thus, there remains no ambiguity about the gross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
