9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is reheard and corrected, but only if an error is apparent on the face of the record. Mere repetition of the same grounds agitated in review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the appeal had been negatived. - R.V.W.O No. 21 of 2021 With ITAT 129 OF 2016 IA No. GA 1 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2022 - HON BLE JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JUDGE Present:- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee Advocate . for the Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. P. Jhunjhumwala, Mr. Siddharth Das, Advocates .... for the Respondent/Review Petitioner Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J: 1. The instant review application has been filed in the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Hon ble Court in respect of the order dated August 14, 2015. 4. After hering both the parties, the Hon ble Court reformulated substantial question of law and answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reformulated substantial question of law reads as- A. Whether in the facts and circumstance of the case the assessee will be entitled to exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act for business of blending of tea being carried on by it taking aid from provisions of other statutes and the policies? 5. Thus, being aggrieved by the Judgement of the Hon ble Court the present revision application has been filed. 6. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t been considered. The non-consideration of the said judgement was an error apparent on the face of the record. The view taken in the said judgement and order was also contrary to the view taken by the division bench of this court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. A.P., (2019). 410 ITR 168 (Cal) and that in case the division bench found itself in disagreement with the previous division bench, it ought to have referred the matter to the Hon ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench and ought not to have decided the appeal. v. The constitution bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commisioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 , held that ambiguity in exemption provision should be resolved in favou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and answered the substantial questions of law arising out of the Tribunal s order dated August 14,2015 in the petitioners favour and against the revenue. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the revenue submits that when the learned senior Counsel appearing for applicant, who has himself appeared for the respondents in appeal and accepts that the question formulated was answered in detail by him at the hearing in appeal, then how can he agitate on the issue of not framing the question in appeal. This clearly shows that the review application has no merit and should be dismissed with cost. 8. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the respective submissions raised by the bar. Order 47 Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 10. The question framed by the Court was argued by the counsels during hearing of the appeal and each and every issue was considered in the judgement dated 30.09.2021. A review of the judgment dated 30.09.2021 is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby a decision is reheard and corrected, but only if an error is apparent on the face of the record. Mere repetiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
