Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Kanpur v. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar
[Citation -2017-LL-0921-7]

Citation 2017-LL-0921-7
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Kanpur
Respondent Name Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags review application
Bot Summary: Having gone through the grounds taken in the Review Application, we find that entire endeavor on the part of Review Applicant is to show that the Court has not properly appreciated the matter and judgment is not correct. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others 1997 SCC 715 it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and said: 3 The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Court said that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. In the case in hand, since no ground for review, as above, is made out, the review application is dismissed.


1 Court No. 34 Case : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 268 of 2014 Appellant : Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Kanpur Respondent : Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson Alld. Counsel for Appellant : Ashok Kumar, S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan,Krishna Agrawal, Umesh Chandra Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent : Umesh Chandra Kesharwani,Suyash Agarwal,U.C.Kesarwani Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. (Ref : Civil Misc. Review Application No.68932 of 2017) 1. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for respondent and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for appellant. 2. Having gone through grounds taken in Review Application, we find that entire endeavor on part of Review Applicant is to show that Court has not properly appreciated matter and judgment is not correct. Virtually there is attempt to re argue matter which is not permissible in Review Application. 3. application for review cannot be treated to be opportunity to argue case on merits afresh. In garb of review application reargument on merits of case cannot be allowed.. 4. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 1372 Court said: review is by no means appeal in disguise whereby erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 5. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma 1979 (4) SCC 389 Court said: 2 ... there is nothing in Article 226 of Constitution to preclude High Court from exercising power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to exercise of power of review. power of review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits. That would be province of Court of Appeal. power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by Subordinate Court. 6. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury AIR 1995 SC 455 while quoting with approval above passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn (supra), Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 7. In Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others 1997 (8) SCC 715 it was held that error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on face of record justifying court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. 8. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095, Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at time of review of judgment and said: 3 "The limitations on exercise of power of review are well settled. first and foremost requirement of entertaining review petition is that order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on face of order and permitting order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In absence of any such error, finality attached to judgement/order cannot be disturbed." 9. Thus, Review is not appeal in disguise. Rehearing of matter is impermissible in garb of review. It is exception to general rule that once judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650, Court said that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of statute dealing with exercise of power. aforesaid view is reiterated in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665. 10. In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320, Court said: 19. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with view of judgment cannot be ground for invoking same. As long as point is already dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge impugned judgment in guise that alternative view is possible under review jurisdiction. Summary of Principles: 20. Thus, in view of above, following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by statute: 20.1. When review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge 4 of petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on face of record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in rule". same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337. 22.2. When review will not be maintainable: (i) repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with original hearing of case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless material error, manifest on face of order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) review is by no means appeal in disguise whereby erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) mere possibility of two views on subject cannot be ground for review. (vii) error apparent on face of record should not be error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) appreciation of evidence on record is fully within domain of appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when same relief 5 sought at time of arguing main matter had been negatived." (emphasis supplied) 11. In case in hand, since no ground for review, as above, is made out, review application is dismissed. Order Date : 21.9.2017 DKS CommissionerofIncome-tax, CentralKanpur v. KesarwaniZardaBhandar
Report Error