9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be identified. We had also observed that in the light of section 133 (6) of the Act, donors list was produced before the CIT (A) in the appeal under the pretext that the first list produced by it was erroneous, still, enquiry was undertaken by resorting to sample check to identify the donors. Identity of the donors could not be established. Eight donors flatly denied to have paid any donation. Notices / letters sent to many of the donors from the list furnished by the applicant u/s 133 (6) had returned unserved with the remarks address not found , insufficient address , addressee left . Consequently, we held that the decision of the ITAT of holding the conclusion drawn by the Assessment Officer being plausible, no substantial question of law was being raised and the appeal was dismissed. Assessment of Donations - As we have demonstrated, it cannot be an appeal in disguise which precisely seems to be the case in the matter in hand. We avoid to burden this order by citing several decisions on this aspect of the matter. Suffice for the purpose to observe that the powers of review are circumscribed by well settled norms. It is only an error which can be rectified. If, as is bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Alok Sharma Standing Counsel ORDER PER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : This is an application purportedly under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the assessee, which is a trust and the original appellant, seeking review of the order passed by this Court in its Income Tax Appeal no. 7 of 2023 preferred under section 260-A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. It is necessary to note that though the learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the respondent revenue initially raised objection as to the maintainability of application for review, with a common understanding we have heard the review application in its entirety and are passing the order. 3. Shortly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this review application are to the effect that the applicant is a trust engaged in running educational institutions. The assessment officer served it a notice under section 143 (2) of the Act on 03-02-2014. On enquiry, he concluded that it had received the donations from 7145 donors to the tune in aggregate of Rs. 2,89,20,995/- and reached a conclusion that those donations were anonymous, under section 115 BBC of the Act. The applicant challenged that de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the matter of Navnit Lal C. Zaveri V. K.K. Sen; AIR 1965 SC 1375 and C. B. Gautam V. Union of India; 1993(1) SCC 78 and UCO Bank Calcutta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; 1999 (4) SCC 599. He submits that in view of circular no. 10 and 13 of 2013 issued by the CBDT, no notice issued under section 143 (2) could have been issued. 7. Section 68 of the Act was not applicable since the applicant had disclosed the income from donation. The applicant is a charitable institution registered under section 12A of the Act but the fact was overlooked. The notice issued to the applicant under section 142 (1) of the Act was premature since the period for filing the return was still to get over. Subsequently, return was also filed on 09-11-2013 accompanied by all the relevant documents. Verification in respect of all the 7145 donors was not undertaken. Though the list of donors was produced, it was produced by the employees in the absence of the chairman. There was no intention or deliberate attempt to mislead the Revenue. The list was prepared by the clerk without verification from the original record but the Assessment Officer had failed to appreciate the fact and passed the order on 27-03-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) Commissioner of Income-Tax and another Vs. MBA Nahata Charitble Trust; 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12351. 13. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the revenue would raise a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the application for review. He would submit that review is a statutory power and cannot be assumed to inhere in this Court. There is no provision in the Act conferring such power. Even if the High Court is a court of record, it can merely correct its mistake or error which power would be independent and referable to Article 215 of the Constitution of India and in the absence of any statutory provision, this court cannot undertake review. 14. As far as the merits of the review application are concerned, Mr. Sharma would submit that this Court can undertake review only within the parameters laid down by the catena of decisions. Appeal cannot be heard again under the guise of review application. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Though a submission was made on behalf of the Revenue that circular no. 10 and 13 of CBDT would not be applicable to the fact situation of the matter in hand, this Court had not recorded any finding thereon. This Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appeal. The whole attempt on behalf of the applicant seems to be to point out as to how this Court had committed illegality in deciding the appeal rather than making any attempt to point out any error apparent on the fact of the record. Suffice for the purpose to refer to the decision in the matter of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. V. Assam State Electricity Board and others; (2020) 2 SCC 677 , wherein it has been observed that the scope of review is limited and a party cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue a question under the guise of review. The error should be evident and if it requires a process of reasoning to be undertaken to detect it, it can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. 19. As laid down in the matter of Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Services Ltd.; (2023) 8 SCC 11 , an error on the face of the record must be such an error which merely looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long drawn procedure on the points where there may be two opinions. 20. Bearing in mind these principles, the whole submissions made by Mr. Deshmukh on behalf of the applicant would clearly demonstrate that every attempt h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
