Mahaveer Lunia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition),And Initiating Officer, Under The Pbpt Act For The State Ofrajasthan, Jaipur, Room No Na

JODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 20/2024 1. Alishan Complex Private Limited, Through Its Director Mr.Mukesh Kumar Lunia S/o Jawari Lal Lunia Aged About 46Years Residing At Moksh Main Mandor Road Oposite HotelMapple Abhay Paota, Jodhpur.Mukesh Kumar Lunia S/o Jawari Lal Lunia Aged About 46Years Residing At Moksh Main Mandor Road Oposite HotelMapple Abhay Paota, Jodhpur. 2. Mahaveer Lunia S/o Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 51Years, Residing At Moksh Main Mandor Road OppositeHotel Mapple Abhay Paota, Jodhpur.Years, Residing At Moksh Main Mandor Road OppositeHotel Mapple Abhay Paota, Jodhpur. ----Petitioners Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition),And Initiating Officer, Under The Pbpt Act For The State OfRajasthan, Jaipur, Room No Na 103, New Central RevenueBuilding, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302005. ----Respondent HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 09/04/2024 1.This review petition has been preferred claiming thefollowing reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that the present reviewpetition may kindly be allowed, and the impugnedjudgment passed by this Hon’ble Court dated 12.12.2023may kindly be reviewed/clarified and it be clarified that theappropriate adjudicating authority shall decide the case onmerits without being influenced by the observations madeby the Hon’ble Court in the order dated 12.12.2023. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Courtdeems just and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case may also be passed in favour of the reviewpetitioner.” 2.The review-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil WritPetition No.16732/2023 (alongwith connected petitions filed byother companies) against the orders of provisional attachment ofproperty under Section 24 (3) & 24 (4)(a)(i) of the Prohibition ofBenami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as‘PBPT Act’); the said petitions were dismissed vide the judgment12.12.2023 under review. 3.Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted byMr.Pushkar Taimni submits that this Hon’ble Court in its judgmentdated 12.12.2023 did not clarify that the Adjudicating Authorityshall decide the case under Section 26 of the PBPT Actindependently and without being influenced by the observationsmade by this Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned judgment, andtherefore, the said judgment is required to be reviewed, qua thesaid aspect of the case. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this Hon’bleCourt, while passing the judgment under view, has not consideredthat the two orders dated 28.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 passed with same DIN are violative of the mandatory CBDT CircularNo.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019, which mandates that every notice/order shall be passed with an independent DIN. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the reviewpetitioner’s case falls under the exception provided in Section 2 (9) of the PBPT Act. Learned Senior Counsel further submits thatthe respondents relied upon the statements of certain persons,however, the correctness and reliability of such statements quathe case of the petitioner company were not dealt by this Hon’bleCourt, and therefore, the judgment dated 12.12.2023 needs to bereviewed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions madeon behalf of the petitioner, submits that this Hon’ble Court hadalready dealt with all the issues in the judgment dated 12.12.2023under review, and therefore, no case for review is made out, andthe instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. (9) of the PBPT Act. Learned Senior Counsel further submits thatthe respondents relied upon the statements of certain persons,however, the correctness and reliability of such statements quathe case of the petitioner company were not dealt by this Hon’bleCourt, and therefore, the judgment dated 12.12.2023 needs to bereviewed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions madeon behalf of the petitioner, submits that this Hon’ble Court hadalready dealt with all the issues in the judgment dated 12.12.2023under review, and therefore, no case for review is made out, andthe instant review petition is liable to be dismissed. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that in the judgment dated12.12.2023, this Hon’ble Court has dealt with each and everysubmission of the review-petitioner, and only thereafter, a detailedjudgment under review has been passed, and thus, on that countalone, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused therecord of the case. 6.This Court observes that the review petitioner had preferredthe aforesaid writ petition against the orders of provisionalattachment of property under Section 24 (3) & 24 (4)(a)(i) PBPTAct, which was dismissed alongwith other connected petitions ofother companies, vide the judgment 12.12.2023 under review. 7.This Court further observes that in the review jurisdiction,there is a very limited scope for interference, more particularly, inlight of a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered bythe Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs V.Narayana Reddy and Ors. Civil Appeals No. 5503-04 of2022, decided on 18.08.2022), relevant portion whereof isreproduced as hereunder:- “13. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that areview application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of newand important matters or evidence which, after exercise of duediligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant orcould not be produced by him when the decree was passed orthe order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or errorapparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any othersufficient reason. 17. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction,the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at adifferent conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics& Hydropower Ltd. and Others (2005) 6 SCC 651 , this Court observed as follows: “ 10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court toreappreciate the evidence and reach a differentconclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel forthe Board at best sought to impress us that thecorrespondence exchanged between the parties did notsupport the conclusion reached by this Court. We areafraid such a submission cannot be permitted to beadvanced in a review petition. The appreciation ofevidence on record is fully within the domain of theappellate court. If on appreciation of the evidenceproduced, the court records a finding of fact and reachesa conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in areview petition unless it is shown that there is an errorapparent on the face of the record or for some reasonakin thereto. It has not been contended before us thatthere is any error apparent on the face of the record. Topermit the review petitioner to argue on a question ofappreciation of evidence would amount to converting areview petition into an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added) 18. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot bepermitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening (emphasis added) 18. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot bepermitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review isnot to be confused with the appellate power which enables theSuperior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinateCourt……… 26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it hasbeen consistently held by this Court in several judicialpronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is notthe same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open toreview if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face ofthe record, but an error that has to be detected by a process ofreasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the faceof the record for the Court to exercise its powers of reviewunder Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powersof review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute theview taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of takingtwo views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to reviewwhen any new or important matter of evidence has emergedafter passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that suchevidence was not within the knowledge of the party seekingreview or could not be produced by it when the order was madedespite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is aclear distinction between an erroneous decision as against anerror apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decisioncan be corrected by the Superior Court, however an errorapparent on the face of the record can only be corrected byexercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referredto in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has beendescribed as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrasehas been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, atleast analogous to those specified in the rule” (Refer: ChajjuRam v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112 and Moran MarBasselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar PouloseAthanasius and Others 1955 SCR 520)” 8.This Court also observes that the issue regarding theexception under Section 2 (9) of PBPT has already been dealt withby this Hon’ble Court in para 22 and 23 of the judgment dated 12.12.2023 under review, alongwith the other issues pertaining toSections 24 and 26 of PBPT and thus, no case for review in thesaid judgment is made out. 9.This Court further observes that this Hon’ble Court in thedetailed judgment dated 12.12.2023 has already dealt with all theissues raised by the review-petitioner in this review petition. ThisCourt thus does not feel persuaded by any of the grounds raisedin the present review petition so as to review its earlier judgmentdated 12.12.2023. 10.Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and afore-quotedprecedent law as well as looking into the factual matrix of thepresent case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grantany relief to the review-petitioner in the present review petition.11.Consequently, the instant review petition is dismissed. (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 131-SKant/-