Incometaxrajnandgaon (Cg v. Shrimukuldeshlehara

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PURDivisjon Bench :Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra IWishra. &Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJReview Petition No. 30 of 2011 PetitionerResoondent IncomeTaxRajnandgaon (CG) Officer, -Versus- ShriMukulDeshlehara,Proprietor of M/s DeshleharaUdyog, VilJage Dewada, Tahsil& District Rajnandgaon (CG) OR DER (Passed onXOApril, 2011 in chamber) Per Dhirendra Mishra. J By thisreviewpetition,thepetitionerhasprayedforreviewing the order dated 16.6.2009 passed in I.T.A.No. 13/05and other connected appeals, on the ground that after passing ofthe order under review, an amendment has been made in theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act, 1961") vide Finance ActNo.14/10 w.e.f.1st October,1998 anda provisionhas beenincorporated that theHighCourt may admitanappeal afterexpiry ofthe period of 120 days referred to in Clause (A) of sub-clause(2)of Sectjon260,if itissatisfied thattherewassyfficient cause for not filing the same within the period.2.The petitioner has also filed an application (IA No.01) forcondonation of delay as this review petition has been preferredwith a delay of 616 days. 3.Consideringthereasonsmentionedintheapplication,which is also supported by the affidavit, we propose to examinefhe issue on merits by condoning the delay in filing this reviewpetitjon. Accordingly, IA No.01 is allowed and delay is condoned. 4.The ground for interference with theorder while exercisingreview jurisdiction is weil settled. which may be summarized asunder: 'ft is settfed law that the High Courf exercisespower ofreviewas a Court of plenary jurfsdfctionto prevent miscarriage of justice or to correctgrave and palpable errors committecf by it. Theresre no definitive fimits to the exercise of thepowers of review. The power of review may beexercised on the ds'scovery of vnew and impoftsntmatter or evidence which, aftef the exercise ofofue difigence, was not wfthin the knowledge ofthe person seeking the review or could not beprocfuced by him at the time when the order wasmacfe. ft may be exera'sed where some mistakeor error apparent on the face of the record isfound.However, the power is to be exeraisedwsthin the fimitatsons as provided under Section114 reacf with Order 47 of theCode of CfvifProcedure, 1908." 5.Thus, in view of the above settled principles of law andafter going through the order under review, we find that no anypermissiblegroundhasbeenraisedintheinstantreviewpetition, except the ground of amendment in the provislon ofSection260AoftheAct,1961vjdeFinanceAct,2010.Sndisputably, when the matter was decided by this Court, theamended provision was not jn the statute and the matter wasdecided on merits by considering the legal provlsions existingthen. Therefore,in our consldered opinion, the instant reviewpetition cannot be entertained only on the ground that the statutehassubsequentlysufferedamendmenthavingretrospectiveeffect from 1st October, 1998. We find no illegality or infirmity intheorderunderreview;theinstantpetitioniswithoutanysubstance.thesamedeservestobeandis,accordingly,dismissed.