9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material facts which relied in an income having escaped assessment is based on reasons which need no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the aforesaid finding. The judgment passed by this Court has also been sought to be reviewed on the ground that various case laws relied upon by the petitioner in support of its claim have not been considered by this Court. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, the judgments of Aventis Pharma Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 317 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], Arun Gupta. [ 2015 (2) TMI 213 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] and United Electrical Co. Ltd. [ 2002 (10) TMI 86 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been referred to and dealt with. This Court is not obliged to refer to each and every judgment forming part of a compilation of judgments submitted after conclusion of oral submissions, which judgments were not placed before the Court during oral submissions. Moreover, while deciding the writ petition, we have referred to and relied upon the relevant case laws and it is not been submitted by the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses incurred by it on behalf of the principal company and for the aforesaid reasons, the assessing authority came to a conclusion that the petitioner had not truly and fully disclosed all material facts necessary for the assessment, thereby necessitated reassessment under Section 147 of the Act. 5. Keeping in view the scope of judicial review while scrutinizing a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act as explained in Raymond woolen Mills Ltd. Versus I.T.O., (1999) 236 ITR 36 (SC), Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO, (2008) 14 SCC 218, Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO,(1993) 4 SCC 77 and Srikrishna (P) Ltd. v. ITO, (1996) 9 SCC 534 , this Court had held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after conducting an investigation, going through the relevant documents of the petitioner and after recording a reason to believe that the petitioner had not truly and fully disclosed all the material facts, because of which income amounting to Rs. 2,62,56,303/- has escaped assessment. Therefore, there was prima facie material available before the assessing officer for issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the following words: - an error apparent 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 points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137, wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ. (Emphasis Supplied) 11. In Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 , the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 15.3.Similarly, in Parsion Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 the principles were summarised as under: (SCC p. 719, para 9) 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . 16.On the other hand, reliance was placed by the respondent on the decision in BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club(2005) 4 SCC 741 to submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as strikes on mere looking at the record and as would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning for being established and regarding which there may not be conceivably be two opinions. 14. In the judgment and order dated 20.04.2022 sought to be reviewed, all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered and dealt with including the submissions explaining the discrepancy in 26AS and profit and loss account of the petitioner. We had gone through the entire original record of the department and had found that the Assessing Officer has recorded his reason to believe that the petitioner had not shown certain receipts in profit and loss account and had not given any explanations for the same. It had not disclosed the amount of reimbursement of expenses claimed by it and actual amount received by it towards reimbursement. It had not submitted the details of expenses incurred and it had not produced any ledger, bills and vouchers of expenses during the assessment proceedings. Thus, the petitioner did not make true and full disclosure of all material fact which relied for some income having escaped assessment. This finding is recorded after a th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage, and this ratio does not appear to be based on any peculiar facts so as to be not applicable to the present case and the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the aforesaid ratio is based on any peculiar facts and it would not apply to the present case. Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (supra) is case specific and it cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. 17. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) supports the view of the petitioner that to initiate reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have some tangible material before him before initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act which is not there in the present case. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Srikrishna (Pvt.) Ltd. versus I.T.O., (1996) 9 SCC 534 relied upon by this Court required that the assessee is under obligation to disclose the material facts and such disclosure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
